Why beef-lovers are completely wrong?

The recent ban on beef in Maharashtra has caused a huge uproar on social media. This ban is being hailed as a direct attack on their personal freedom.The argument is as follows:

“What I eat is my choice. Who is any government or moral police to dictate what I eat or do not eat? Will they ban spinach and lauki also tomorrow if I am offended? This is communal politics of right-winged Hindu fanatics and must be opposed.”On surface, it appears so reasonable and logical. But let us scratch the surface and explore how valid is this movement against Beef Ban.

0. The ban on cow slaughter and most cattle is already existing in majority of states of India. Were these beef lovers sleeping like Rip Van Winkle for last 68 years? What were they eating so far? Were they indulging in illegal activities? Why they did not show their beef love so far? Why they could not raise a movement against beef-ban in last near-seven decades?

1. No one has any problem with what you eat and what you do not. You are free to eat even from the commode in democracy. But the ban is not on eating. It is on killing of cattle. Now people like me have several objections to killing of cow (and cattle in general). If you can create beef in laboratory without killing my mother, I have absolutely no issues with you.

But if you want to kill my mother in name of democracy, then better explore that democracy in Somalia or ISIS zones.Your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.

2. Yes, it is true that for overwhelming majority of India, cow has sentimental values. They consider cow as mother. Their most popular God – Lord Krishna – is known as Gopal for his love for cows. On every occasion – birth, death, festival, happiness, sorrow – feeding and worshipping cow is considered a primary duty. There are multiple festivals dedicated primarily to cow. And this respect is extended to cattle in general. Bull is considered as companion of another revered God – Lord Shankar.

It does not matter whether you agree with this cow worship or not. But so far majority of Indians consider cow as mother, killing of cows cannot be acceptable.Think of it. Say I name an animal on your mother and slaughter it. I write name of a Hindu God, Prophet Muhammad or Jesus Christ on an animal and slaughter it. I desecrate a temple, mosque or church. Will you encourage this kind of behavior?

If yes, I will call you pervert. But that is besides the point. First dare to perform such acts as above, post videos of same on youtube, put your address in description and raise a movement to allow you such crazy behavior in name of democracy. Don’t have double standards in your apparent love for freedom.

If no, then slaughter of revered mother cow and associated cattle cannot be accepted in a country where cow is foundation of religious and cultural ethos of majority.

3. Don’t give the sick argument that cows and cattle are mistreated in the country. Don’t prove to me that most cow-sellers for beef production are Hindus. Hence ban on beef shows double standards.

If above is indeed the case, tell me instead, what you propose to do to help solve this problem. Reality is also that women are unsafe in many parts of country because of attitude of society. That does not mean having punishment for rape shows double standards. Your sick argument mirrors exactly the views of rapist in Nirbhaya case.

It does not matter what the religion of all beef-producers in India is. What matters is that…….For complete content of this post, you can buy copy of following Agniveer book. Simply click and order your copy. Happy reading.

Facebook Comments

Disclaimer: By Quran and Hadiths, we do not refer to their original meanings. We only refer to interpretations made by fanatics and terrorists to justify their kill and rape. We highly respect the original Quran, Hadiths and their creators. We also respect Muslim heroes like APJ Abdul Kalam who are our role models. Our fight is against those who misinterpret them and malign Islam by associating it with terrorism. For example, Mughals, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and every other person who justifies sex-slavery, rape of daughter-in-law and other heinous acts. For full disclaimer, visit "Please read this" in Top and Footer Menu.

I am founder of Agniveer. Pursuing Karma Yog. I am an alumnus of IIT-IIM and hence try to find my humble ways to repay for the most wonderful educational experience that my nation gifted me with. I am also on Quora.

A) Great Ghazi Kings like Mohammed Bin Qasim who killed several thousand Hindu men in Sind and Multan and then captured weeping 100,0000 women and children ,made them slaves and send 30,000 of them to Iraq who after doing all these say (In Arabic) “Allah is great; There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet” five times a day 11) And then another Ghazi king Mahmud who killed ,enslaved 500,000 Hindus of Afghanistan, FATA, Khyberpakhtoonkhwa and Punjab.

B) A Hindu who does not harm any one follow Ahimsa, worship forms of God (or signs of God) Lord Shiva, Lord Vishnu by worshipping the idols of pristine temples

c) Allah is the best judge. Allah knows the Best

3. Select from below the TRUE statement?

A) Smart Musa Nabi who can distinguish the sentence in Arabic he heard to be from Allah and understand that it is not made by some one using loud speaker. Btw he saw a bush fire which is sign from Allah ???

B) Not so smart Moses of Christians and Jews, who will doubt whether the sentence (in Hebrew/Aramaic/Canaanite/ancient Egyptian), is from Yahweh or some one using loudspeaker; so Yahweh appeared as a boy (like in movie “Exodus Gods and kings”) or rather made Moses saw a boy’s image speaking

Indian govt must have banned beef as soon as India got independence but as usual Indian politicians do not care about the sentiments of the majority of the population as this majority is harmless and peaceful. However, Indian politicians tried their best to take care of the sentiments of the minorities and tried to please them to every extent even if it harms majority population. It is all because Hindus do not have unity and even faith to their culture and religion. Majority of Hindus are highly individualistic, selfish and do not care if someone burns their scriptures or say anything to hurt their sentiments. Though some of them are so spineless that they will go to any extent to defend any wrong act done by minorities on Hindus. Americans eat meat but they have banned cats and dogs meat just because these animals are also raised as pets by majority of americans. Cow is much more useful and has more bonding than cats and dogs to majority of Indian population but govt has no regards to take care of the sentiments of this majority. It is high time that Hindus should unite and ask govt to completely ban cow slaughters in each and every part of the country.

all the cows and cow lovers will be beheaded and converted to beef and consumed one day! you morons and finger ejaculators.. @Vajra says … ejaculate to much on the keyboard and you will also be consumed.

Haha yea ‘Bull essence’ ! That hurt you yea… @Vajra Now for a debate, Lets assume that you are a Donkey, just check below the tail you might find the bull essence.

Now read the article carefully, The author address the cow as “my mother”. Unless you say the reader should not take literally that and ‘my mother’ means something else.

First of all the article is baseless, Its just based on emotional sentiments of certain believers based on some fairy tale epic.

Author talks about constitution. During India’s 1940 constitutional debates conservative Hindus had argued for a ban on cow slaughter to be included as one of the constitution’s fundamental rights. fortunately at the time, that proposal was rejected. 65 years later, that appears to be India’s new reality. ( what a pathetic state of India)

Can’t we all grow up? Can’t we admit that cattle is food for some and its a personal choice ? Can’t we have nice farms where cow’s are grown for food? So that beef eaters can get a good quality meat instead of game meat like tasting cart pulling old cows and bulls ?

There is a thin line between life and food, As soon as the head skin and guts of the animal is removed it of course looks like tasty food. And I agree that cruelty towards animals to convert it to food is unnecessary. We should show some compassion and kill the animal without causing a lot of pain.

so now what about people who grew up eating beef which is the only source of cheap and tasty protein? fortunately cow slaughter is not banned in ALL the states in India (phew!!) there are many beef friendly states where it is legal to slaughter and eat the cow.

yes i saw that brother. but the word also means light, beam, brightness, gleam, glow, illumination, lamp, INDIRECT LIGHT .’ so basically u cherry picked indirect light to suit your own prefered meaning. and where is the the word”rflectd “bro?

The concerned person has requested you several times to continue the question-answer session on email. And despite several requests, you still insist on not reading or following the Disclaimer and Comment Policy.

I can even show you WORDS REPUTED LOGICIANS, MATHEMATICIANS, SCIENTISTS WHO CONVERTED TO ISLAM.

And point to note is they were atheists.

For example I of them whom I love very much who DEBUNKED THE THEORY THAT GOD CAN’T DO EVERYTHING (which even dayanand believed) From Qur’an.

Dr. Jeffrey Lang, a mathematician [Professor of Mathematics at University of Kansas, US] (an ex-atheist)] –

HIS arguments were also priceless.

He believed that God has to be from God after looking at it’s structure.

Although he said that it’s not new thing that Qur’an mentions shape of earth. He said that this was known to Aristotle honestly.

But he didn’t said Qur’an was copied or anything. He believed it from God and he said it’s correct.

There are other atheists also.

And how can we forget poets. ALMOST ALL ARABIC AND NON ARABIC SCHOLARS OF ARABIC SAYS THAT Qur’an is best POET MIRACLE ON FACE OF EARTH.

Agniveer commented on that even and I don’t like you Quoting a thing which you don’t know.

Many even converter.

For example Mohammed Asad was a Jew, you remember I even use his translation sometimes.

T.b Irving was a Christian B. J monjayin

Pickthall etc.

Pickthall even said after converting to Islam and analysing beauty of Qur’an

“The Koran cannot be translated… It is only an attempt to present the meaning of the Koran and peradventure something of the charm in English. It can never take the place of the Koran in Arabic, nor is it meant to do so.”

Dear Jazib, Please read disclaimer before any further posts. You have been asked to do so by others. Your trolling behavior is unacceptable and against disclaimer and comment policy of site. You are free to further your conversion agenda on your own site. Kindly refrain from using this site as a toilet. Your 70 odd comments may seek peace in Heaven.

There are 100+ verses and we can Quote 100+scientists to justify them.

Dr. Joe Leigh Simpson, Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, at the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, U.S.A., proclaims: “… these HADITHS, sayings of MUHAMMAD—sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam—could not have been obtained on the basis of the scientific knowledge that was available at the time of the writer (7th century).

Anyways his comments:

“Now let man but think From what he is created! He is created from A drop emitted — Proceeding from between The back bone and the ribs.” [AL-QUR’AN 86:5-7]

In embryonic stages, the reproductive organs of the male and female, i.e. the testicles and the ovaries, begin their development near the kidney between the spinal column and the eleventh and twelfth ribs. Later they descend; the female gonads(ovaries) stop in the pelvis while the male gonads(testicles) continue their descent before birth to reach the scrotum through the inguinal canal. Even in the adult after the descent of the reproductive organ, these organs receive their nerve supply and blood supply from the Abdominal Aorta, which is in the area between the back bone(spinal column) and the ribs. Even the lymphatic drainage and the venous return goes to the same area.

Prof. Marshall Johnson is one of the leading scientists in US, and is the head of the Department of Anatomy and Director of the Daniel Institute at the Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia in US.

According to Prof. Johnson, if we describe the embryo as a complete creation, then we are only describing that part which is already created.If we describe it as an incomplete creation, then we are only describing that part which is not yet created. So, is it a complete creation or an incomplete creation? There is no better description of this stage of embryogenesis than the Qur’anic description, ‘partly formed and partly unformed’, as in the following verse:

“WE created you Out of dust, then out of Sperm, then out of a leech-like Clot, then out of a morsel Of flesh, partly formed And partly unformed.” [AL-QUR’AN 22:5] Scientifically we know that at this early stage of development there are some cells which are differentiated and there are some cells that are undifferentiated—some organs are formed and yet others unformed.

Now I will give you verses where you can show no own interpretations. Although it doesn’t matter.

You must be knowing that embryology in Qur’an is confirmed by reputed EMBRYOLOGISTS OF WORLD. Maybe your agniveer didn’t told you.

That’s why they never mention it.

The only fool who tried to write against this topic in Qur’an is ALI SINA who was later told to consult some elementary biology teacher by these embryologists.

Ali Sina said sperm comes from testes however it comes from between 12th backbone and ribs.

So let’s start Saroj. Go and visit all anti-islamic sites.

So start

Prof. (Dr.) Keith Moore, who was the Professor of Embryology and Chairman of the Department of Anatomy at the University of Toronto, in Canada. THIS GUY WHOSE DESIGNATION IS BIGGER THAT KNOWLEDGE OF HINDUS WILL GIEV COMMENTRIES.

LOOK ALI SINA SAYS MUSLIMS PAID WORLD SCIENTISTS BUT I HOPE YOU WILL SEE THAT BY COMMENTRIES.

“HE makes you, In the wombs of your mothers, In stages, one after another, In three veils of darkness.” [AL-QUR’AN 39:6]

According to Prof. Keith Moore these three veils of darkness in the QUR’ANrefer to” (a) anterior abdominal wall of the mother (b)the uterine wall (c)the amnio-chorionoic membrane.

totally hilarious an ubiased reader would understand that kullun simply refers to moon and sun and not to earth.

Response : Those who know Arabic they know it refers to ALL SUN MOON AND EARTH. 2. One who wants to learn Qur’an after searching will already analyse and you don’t have to be scientist to understand this. It’s simple.

And what lies are you spreading those who have translated REFLECTED LIGHT ARE WRONG, do you know more Arabic than us.

Even for confusion not to arise that I QUOTED DICTIONARIES, didn’t I?

And what joke was that only different lights are mentioned. I Quoted passages from Qur’an showing it to be reflected light.

I even Quoted Muhammad Asads comments on it.

Regarding water cycle I said ALMOST ALL COMMENTATORS OF QUR’AN MENTIONED IT AS CAPACTIY OF HEAVEN TO GET BACK RAIN. You totally neglected.

21:44 your own interpretation that God took their wealth ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY DIED AS RICH. Moreover whose commentries have you to support your argument.

You have to agree as it tends to show shape of earth you were therefore trying to be crafty. Qur’an even mentions it separately, you even neglected that.

the real joke was the way you interpret vedas. in Vedas we require metaphors and allegories that pertain to context, because the tradition says Vedas are like poems. the rishis are kavis, poets, hence their verses r not metpahors. only a poet can become a sage , because since the Vedas r poems, only a sage that can understand a poem can understand the verse he “see”, or is revealed to him. the metpahors are to be: (1)pertaining to the context. (2) the metaphrical usage is to be explained on the bassis of referencesto other part of the Vedas (3)if the parts of the verse is not matching, at that time the metaphors are to be used. and that is what ive done. ypu can verify it.

Rig Veda 7:83:3 3 The boundaries of earth were seen all dark with dust: O Indra-Varuna, the shout went up to heaven. The enmities of the people compassed me about. Ye heard my calling and ye came to me with help.

You said that it means evil spread the earth. I agree but FLAT EARTH AS DESCRIPTION MENTIONS(what they thought)

Rig veda 4:50:3 Let’s see this verse part by part

1. (Him who with might hath propped earth’s ends)

THIS HYMN IS REGARDING ” BRHASPATI” who is supposed to travel earth’s ends. This is a person and its clear. As it then says

(who sitteth in threefoldseat,) Here it refers to his seat on his transport on which He TRAVELLED EARTHS ENDS.

(Brhaspati, with thunder,) About brashpati. With thunder means with eagerness as he was going to travel earth’s ends.

(Him of the pleasant tongue have ancient sages, deep-thinking, holy singers, set before them.) This is regarding those who praises him for this purpose.

No matter what you say,these verses are clear.

Let’s summarize : Vedas says: 1. Earth has FOUR ENDS 2. Earth like heavens are FIRM 3. Heavens are SUPPORTED ON PILLARS 4. EARTH is supported On a BULL

These are just overviews of what these sages believed. Now Hindus cry that these are metaphors but they and we BOTH KNOW IT’S NOT TRUE.

Saroj tried to show these as metaphors and said earth is even compared to cooking pot.

He doesn’t know that THE VERSE HE IS TALKING ABOUT TELLS THAT IT’S A SINGLE BY SAYING

Earth IS LIKE and not how earth is According to Vedas SUN MOVES AROUND EARTH (new metaphor)

[Maurice] Atharva Veda 6.8.3 As the sun day by day goes about this heaven and earth…

[Griffith] Atharva Veda 6.8.3 As in his rapid course the Sun encompasses the heaven and the earth…

now rig veda4.50.1 this i have explained before. and thunder dosent represent eagerness, i dont know how you reached this interpretaion. thunder repesents a force that destroys darkness. that is why vedas say indra, with thundr destroys evil forces.t brhaspathi with might props the ends-the existence out of which all comes is waters-salilam-that which flows. at first, brhaspathi exerts a “mighty force”, exters force and defines the ends-that is, the limits and defenitions of the earth, every form is defined by limits. here, brhaspathi exerts force onto a limitless, obscure,salilam(ever flowing waters) to defina a form(which is done by defining the “ends”,and thus froming the earth with its forms). -the triple seat-dosent refer o any kinda car.it mean the three region that brhaspathi pervades-earth, mid air region and heaven-and the word “set” here means brhaspathi pervades them. a detailed explanation is given above. indra/varune case: i told you the verse is NoT FROM cosmological sense. the wrd :eand” here means that darkness pervades the whole earth. the ends here is not to be tkn with its physical meaning. like if i say i “reached the end of something”, it means i pervade the whole thing. similarly, “the boundaries of earth are in darkness ” means that darkness pervades the whole earth. for example, whan veda says”usha(dawn) is daughter of sky-it dosent mean that dawn is literally daughter of sky-it simply is allegorical of dawn being coming at the horizon. thus you cannot use blind literal meaning to the intermediate words in vedas-it has to be taken allegorically apt to the contet. here, in indra/aruna case, the end as literal is not apt,rather ends in the sense that darkness pervades the whole earth is more apt. that is what is meant by allegorical usage of intermediate words.

Vers 1 Brihaspati is he who has established firmly the limits and definitions of the Earth, that is to say of the material consciousness. The existence out of which all formations are made is an obscure, fluid and indeterminate movement,—salilam, Water. The first necessity is to create a sufficiently stable formation out of this flux and running so as to form a basis for the life of the conscient. This Brihaspati does in the formation of the physical consciousness and its world, sahasā, by force, by a sort of mighty constraint upon the resistance of the subconscient. This great creation he effects by establishing the triple principle of mind, life and body, always present together and involved in each other or evolved out of each other in the world of the cosmic labour and fulfilment. The three together form the triple seat of Agni and there he works out the gradual work of accomplishment or perfection which is the object of the sacrifice. Brihaspati forms by sound, by his cry, raveṇa, for the Word is the cry of the soul as it awakens to ever-new perceptions and formations. “He who established firmly by force the ends of the earth, Brihaspati in the triple seat of the fulfilment, by his cry.” (yas tastambha sahasā vi jmo antān, bṛhaspatis triṣadhastho raveṇa.)

“You said that it means evil spread the earth. I agree but FLAT EARTH AS DESCRIPTION MENTIONS(what they thought)” tht is not fitting since the vedas are metaphorical, it is not to be taken as literal.fro example, today we know sun dsnt go up, but still we say”sunrise”. today we know that everything is in space and that there is nothing called as “sky” and still we use “under the sky”. these usages sre there because this is the way we see them or, this is the way we perceive them to be.

-Saroj rain will come again-is a common statement. meaning rain will fall again. ay person who dosent know water cycle will also say that, dsent make it scientific.

Response : Are you nuts or what? Qur’an doesn’t say by LAND AND RETURNING RAIN IT SAYS BY HEAVEN AND RETURNING RAIN The returning towards heaven not earth. This is clear. And almost all FROM PAST TILL PRESENT ALL COMMENTATORS MENTIONS IT AS CAPACTIY OF HEAVEN TO GET BACK RAIN.

And that verse which you Quoted no ways gives impression of anything. You Guys interpret vedas as you like. like

:and the verse you gave gives no impression” that is your statement based on half reading and prejudice,read my whole comment. i am not interpetaing as i like. whatever metphors i use, its all basesd on the Vedas itself. and plese tell me how it dosent make an impression. your skidding away kinda statement dosent work here.

the statement “come again and moister the earth with their fatness” itself refers to rain. nothing other that rain moisten the earth. “. refer the part of the verse before.it says”brisd go up in goldeen colouour roberd in watrs”.gold, as per Vedas refer to agni and surya. if something is “golden”, it refers to the that it has the essense of surya/agni in it. so, the birds that has essence of agni/surya in it strainghtly refer to the “birds” have energy from the sun/fire. and the birds r “robed in water”. now read the verse”birds , having energy goes up to heaven robed in water”. what does it refer to? water vapours (since it says “robed in waters” and , has enegry(since it says “golden coulur” which i explained above),water molecules enter vapour state).and the words “birds” is used since it means it goes up aganist gravity to the sky, hence, IF YOU UNDERSTAND IT PROPERLY, this statement of the verse clearly refers to water vapurs that rise up(hence refered to as birds).AND THIS IS VERIFIED BY THE SUCCEEDING PART:”come AGAIN and tey MOISTER THE EARTH”. that whch comes AGAIN and moisters the earth is nothing other than rain. read the very first part also:”dark is the descend”-refers clearly to rains-the dark clouds gathering @ rain. THUS THE WHOLE VERSE CLEARLY REFERS TO 2WATER CYCLE. ohr than this there is no other way to conect and understand the verse. this interpretaton is based on understanding the verse and it takes some time. WHATEVER COMMENT YOU GAVE ON VEDIC VERSES ARE ALL YOUR HALF READING AND JUDGEMENT. NOT AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE VERSE. the verse anyway clearly refer to water cycle explaining the…

what is now pinching you is the fact that G VEDA actually talks of water cycle in a metaphoric way, which i showed you clearly in a logical manner. for that u should read it without prejudice, which surly ppl lik u wont. ND NEVER. if you are cery much sure th verse dosent rever to water cycle, then show me in my nterpretation where im wrong-BUT REMEMBER YOUR HALF READING AND SKIDDING AWAY ND BUSSINESS YOU DID (LIKE THE RISHI “SAW” HORSES PUT TO STALL N “THOUGHT” EATH/HEVEAN TO BE FIXED HENCE HE PUT THEM TOGETHER) WILL NOT WORK HERE. BECAUSE EVEN IF HE THUGHT ERTH TO BE FIXED AND SAW HORSES PUT TO STALL, IT DOSENT PROMPT HIM TO INCLUDE BOTH IN THE SAME CONTEXT IN A VERSE. THE RISHI IS NOT AN OUT OF MIND NUT LIKE YOU GUYS TO PUT BOTH MUTUALLY DISCONNECTED STUFF (WHICH WHEN READ TOGETHER)IN THE SAME CONTEXT, IF IT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY. . WHAT U DID IS U DID NOT THINK Y THE RISI PUT THESE TWO APPARENTLY DISCONNECTED, OUT OF CONTEXT THINGS IN THE SAME CONTEXT, HERE IS WHERE THE METAPHORIC MEANING SHOULD BE GIVEN WEIGHTAGE, IN ORDER TO CONNECT THE TWO. AND MEATAPHORCAL UNVEILING IS NOT BASED ON MY OWN MOTION TO LINK IT TO SCINECE, BUT BASED ON THE VEDAS ITSELF. WHEREVER I USED THE METAPHORS, I HAVE JUTIFIED Y THE METAPHORICAL MEANING IS TO BE SOUGHTED FOR AND HV JUSTIFIED THE UNVELING OF THE METAPHORS BASED ON COMMON SENSE AND REFERENCE TO OTHER PARTS OF THE VEDAS/SCRIPTUES THAT SUPPORT THE METAPHORIC SYMBOLISM. YU DO NOT READ IT WITH AN OPEN MIND, AND THINK LOGICALLY.THATS YOUR PROBLEM, NOT THAT MY INTERPRETATION IS DECEPTIVE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

AND LET THE READERS OF OUR DISCUSSION DECIDE WHO IS RIGHT AND WHO IS WRONG. LET THE READERS DECIDE IF IM RIGHT .

Noor means reflected light. I Quoted dictionaries even Qur’an which itself says IN 24:35 BY GIVING A PARABLE OF REFLECTED LIGHT. Dr. Zakir Naik addressed these Poor question a time ago. I even Quoted MUHAMMAD ASAD translator of Qur’an who converted to ISLAM.

You said these Translations are wrong. Look man when you don’t know Arabic don’t say anything. Check corpus word by word anywhere. I Even Quoted dictionaries.

You lied in 21:44 because you guys don’t like that Qur’an contains science because that pinches you. Many Atheists convert to Islam because of these.

You said it refers to taking of wealth. First it’s wrong AS THEY DIED AS RICH PERSNOALITIES and wealth was not taken from them. 2. This is not Vedas that you will just say metaphor, metaphor when verse is clear. 3. This verse in 21:44 was talked separately in 13:41

Regarding water cycle you said is wrong. But in Qur’an ALMOST ALL COMMENTATORS OF QUR’AN EXPLAIN IT AS ABILITY OF HEAVENS TO BEING BACK THE water.

i hv responded to you on vedas on your response pn verse atharva veda 6/77/1 amd rig veda 6/72/1. also. rea them fully and not nitpick one line from my comments. next time we talk let it be through emails. it would be easy for me. my email id is here:[email protected]

water cycle metaphorically said in rig veda: The Rig Veda has a lot of metaphors in it. due to this many verses appear obscure and unclear. However understanding the verses to some extend and opening up the metaphors, we can find sensible meaning to many verses in Vedas. In rig veda 10/164/47,we find this very much obscure verse: Dark the descent: the birds are golden-coloured; up to the heaven they fly robed in the waters. Again descend they from the seat of Order, and all the earth is moistened with their fatness.

First it says “dark the descend”,referring to the dark clouds/atmosphere when it rains.

“birds of golden colour,robed in waters” , doesn’t make sense at first sight when read in conjunction with the first statement” dark the descend”, but looking at rain as the common link ,we can understand, or safely assume that birds in golden colour refers to the water molecules rising up in a metaphorical manner .gold is often associated with agni and surya. The world is said to come from hiranyagarbha which literally mean golden womb, which is said to be born of heat, and is related to lustrous sun in manu smrithi. Thus,” birds clothed in golden colour flying upto heavens and robed in waters “is referring to stream of water molecules rising from earth by acquiring sun’s heat energy.(note that gold also refer to desire/wealth at times. But here in this context, this meaning suits.) This understanding makes a lot of sense in the context, because it can be well matched with the first part “dark is the descend”. Next is the statement” ascend again from the seat of high order, and all earth is moistened with their fatness” . Look, it says “again descent down to earth” thus referring to the “birds” we mentioned earlier. thus it is clear again that this line of interpretation is suited here, that the birds refer to water molecules ascending up due to sun’s heat. this comes down and as rains. thus if the metaphors are unveiled, we do find pure science in…

COMMENT AFTER READING THE WHOLE EXPLANATION. DONT NITPICK PIECES OF MY COMMENTS FROM MY SECTION AND THEN JUDGE.

THIS IS THE ONLY INTERPRETATION THAT COULD LINK ALL THE PARTS OF THE VERSE TOGETHER IN A LOGICAL SEQUENCE, OTHERWISE THE VERSE IS OBSCUE. AND ECH SECTION(AMOGST THE 3) HAVE A STRONG LINK TO THE WATER CYCLE.

AND AS USUAL PEOPLE WOJLD SAY THIS IS MY OWN INTERPRETATION AND HENCE “HILARIOUS” BUT WHAT IS HILARIOUS IS THEIR APPROACH TO THE VERSES AND THEIR INABILITY TO EXPLAIN THE APPARENT ANOMALY IN A LITERAL INTERPREATION.AND THIS IS NOT MY “OWN” INTERPRETATION, SINCE ALL THE PARTS OF THE VERSE CONNECTS ITSELF TO THE WATER CYCLE PROCESS, AS I HAV EXPLAINED, AND ALSO THE METAPHORS THAT APPEAR HERE IS ARE BASED ON REFERENCES FROM VEDAS ITSELF. HENCE THIS INTEPRETATION NOT WRONG AND THE CORRECT ONE.

* The “lamp” is the revelation which God grants to His prophets and which is reflected in the believer’s heart – the “niche” of the above parable (Ubayy ibn Ka’b, as quoted by Tabari) – after being received and consciously grasped by his reason (“the glass [shining brightly] like a radiant star”): for it is through reason alone that true faith can find its way into the heart of man.

* It would seem that this is an allusion to the organic continuity of all divine revelation which, starting like a tree from one “root” or proposition – the statement of God’s existence and uniqueness – grows steadily throughout man’s spiritual history, branching out into a splendid variety of religious experience, thus endlessly widening the range of man’s perception of the truth. The association of this concept with the olive-tree apparently arises from the fact that this particular kind of tree is characteristic of the lands in which most of the prophetic precursors of the Qur’anic message lived, namely, the lands to the east of the Mediterranean: but since all true revelation flows from the Infinite Beng, it is “neither of the east nor of the west” – and especially so the revelation of the Qur’an, which, being addressed to all mankind, is universal in its goal as well.

* The essence of the Qur’anic message is described elsewhere as “clear [in itself] and clearly showing the truth” (cf. note 2 on 12:1); and it is, I believe, this aspect of the Qur’an that the above sentence alludes to. Its message gives light because it proceeds from God; but it “would well-nigh give light [of itself] even though fire had not touched it”: i.e., even though one may be unaware that it has been “touched by the fire” of divine revelation, its inner consistency, truth, and wisdom ought to be self-evident to anyone who approaches it in the light of his reason and without prejudice.

* Although most of the commentators read the above phrase in the sense of “God guides unto His light whomever He…

As Zakir Naik correctly said THE VERSE IN WHICH ALLAH CALLS HIMSELF LIGHT. IN THE SAME VERSE ALLAH GIVEN PARABLE OF HIS LIGHT AND SAYS IT IS A NICHE WITHIN IT A LAMP WHICH IS ENCLOSED IN A Glass. This passage given idea of a reflected light like that of halogen lamp. So ALLAH REFLECTS HIS OWN LIGHT.

Qur’an 24:35 Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. THE EXAMPLE OF HIS LIGHT IS THAT OF A NICHE WITHIN WHICH IS A LAMP, THE LAMP IS WITHIN A GLASS, the glass as if it were a pearly [white] star lit from [the oil of] a blessed olive tree, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil would almost glow even if untouched by fire. Light upon light. Allah guides to His light whom He wills. And Allah presents examples for the people, and Allah is Knowing of all things.

Further Muhammad Asad(Arabic scholar) (Jewish convert Islam) Said regarding this verse: “The particle ka (“as if” or “as it were”) prefixed to a noun is called kaf at-tashbih (“the letter kaf pointing to a resemblance [of one thing to another]” or “indicating a metaphor”). In the above context it alludes to the impossibility of defining God even by means of a metaphor or a parable – for, since “there is nothing like unto Him” (42:11), there is also “nothing that could be compared with Him” (112:4). Hence, the parable of “the light of God” is not meant to express His reality – which is inconceivable to any created being and, therefore, inexpressible in any human language – but only to allude to the illumination which He, who is the Ultimate Truth, bestows upon the mind and the feelings of all who are willing to be guided. Tabari, Baghawi, and Ibn Kathir quote Ibn ‘Abbas and Ibn Mas’ud as saying in this context: “It is the parable of His light in the heart of a believer.”

* The “lamp” is the revelation which God grants to His prophets and which is reflected in the believer’s heart – the “niche” of the above parable (Ubayy ibn Ka’b, as quoted by Tabari) – after being received and…

Agniveer said further: Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The example of His light is like a niche within which is a lamp, the lamp is within glass, the glass as if it were a pearly [white] star lit from [the oil of] a blessed olive tree, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil would almost glow even if untouched by fire. Light upon light. Allah guides to His light whom He wills. And Allah presents examples for the people, and Allah is Knowing of all things.

Response : This poor Question was answered by zakir Naik in 1996. In which world is AGNIVEER living.

Let’s see Zakir Naik made an interesting point: The brother posed a question – he did not understand my explanation to the counter argument of Dr. William Campbell, regarding ‘Nur’ and ‘Allah.’ The Qur’an says in Surah Nur, Chapter 24, Verse No. 35, that Allah is ‘Nurus samaavaati wal ardh’ ‘is the light’ of the heavens and the earth – He is a light. The meaning of ‘light’ in the Qur’an – it is ‘reflected light’ or borrowed light. So he is asking… ‘Does it mean that even Allah has got borrowed light?’ So the answer is given further, if you read the Verse – it says that it is like a parable of a nitche – In the nitche there is a lamp. Lamp has a light of its own. That means, Allah has light of its own, as well as that light of its own, is also being reflected. The light of Allah Subhnawataala is again being reflected by Allah Subhanawataala himself, like a halogen lamp that you see here – It has a tube in between. The lamp you can refer to that, as a ‘Siraj’ or a ‘Wahaj’ or a ‘Dia.’ And the reflector as ‘Munir’ or ‘Nur’, borrowed light or ‘reflection of light.’ And further more, but natural this light – actually does not refer to the physical light you are talking about – It is a spiritual light of Allah Subhnawataala – But as an answer I have given to Dr. William Campbell.

all translation r aftr coming to know that moon reflects sunlight.all translations that usses “ref;ected light” are false because the original erse does not contain the arabic word for “reflected” it only states “light”. yes i agree with zakir naik that two different words are used for sun n moon:lamp and light. even if the person dosent know moon reflects the sun, still he can use these two words. because, lamp contains fire and it gives both heat and light,both which sun gives. moon does not give light it goves only light. hence refered to as light. thus a person,good in poetry, and bad in science without knowing moon reflect sun light can also make this type of verse. thus there is nothing scientific here as u suggest. also. science of evporaion on quran, and your way of defending science in 21/44 are totally hilarious. let the readres who reads our conversation decide. i hav given examples from Vedas and supporting texts to prove my points which you groundlessly and blatantly deny, which i exposed in my subsequent responses. LET THE READER WHO READ OUR COMMENTS DECIDE WHO IS RIGHT AND WHO IS MISCHEVIOUS HERE.THANKS NAMASTHE.

Qur’an on MOON LIGHT Followed by Agniveer’s lies and Nonsense comments.

“It is He who made the sun To be a shining glory And the moon to be a light (Of beauty).” [Al-Qur’aan 10:5]

Zakir Naik said regarding this that different words have been used for sun and moon I. E SIRAAJ AND NOOR(reflected light) . Not once in the Qur’aan, is the moon mentioned as siraaj, wahhaaj or diya or the sun as nur or muneer. This implies that the Qur’aan recognizes the difference between the nature of sunlight and moonlight.

Agniveer: Now if Dr. Naik is to be believed, Nur means reflected light. No previous Islamic scholar has made this scandalous claim before – and do you know why? Because one of the 99 Names of the God of Quran (Allah) is AN-Nur.

the sun rises each day and sets at the end of the day, giving one kind of light all the time, but it moves, rising and setting at different points in the summer and winter, thus making the days and nights longer or shorter alternatively according to the season. Its authority is in the daytime, for it is the heavenly body that dominates the day. As for the moon, Allah has decreed that it should pass through different phases. At the beginning of the month, the moon appears small when it rises. It gives off little light, then on the second night its light increases and it rises to a higher position, and the higher it rises the more light it gives – EVEN THOUGH IT IS REFLECTED FROM THE SUN– until it becomes full on the fourteenth night of the month.

Rig Veda 10.85.9 “Moon decided to marry. Day and Night attended its wedding. And sun gifted his daughter “Sun ray” to Moon.”

Response : What Deception! This whole chapter is after a bride named SURYA to a man. It says that Savitri gifted Surya to Soma, not sun’s rays as they have claimed,

Rig Veda 10.85.9 Soma was desirous of a bride; the two Aswins were the two groomsmen when Savitri gifted Surya, who was ripe for a husband, to Soma (endowed) with intelligence.

EVEN IF HINDUS ONLY CHECK RIG VEDA 10:85 it’s name is ” Surya’s Bride”

See also in context Rig veda 10:85:6-10 6 Raibhi was her dear bridal friend, and Narasamsi led her home. Lovely was Surya’s robe: she came to that which Gatha had adorned. 7 Thought was the pillow of her couch, sight was the unguent for her eyes: Her treasury was earth and heaven..when Surya went unto her Lord. 8 Hymns were the cross-bars of the pole, Kurira-metre decked the car: The bridesmen were the Asvin Pair Agni was leader of the train. 9 Soma was he who wooed the maid: the groomsmen were both Asvins, when The Sun-God Savitar bestowed his willing Surya on her Lord. 10 Her spirit was the bridal car; the covering thereof was heaven: Bright were both Steers that drew it when Surya approached her husband’s, home.

Still Some Hindus might argue that Vrishab doesn’t mean Bull it means Sun. For the sake of the argument let’s accept it. But a Vedic verse makes an unscientific claim about Vrishab

Atharva Veda 4.5.1, Rig Veda 7.55.7 The Bull [Vrishab/Sun] who hath a thousand horns, who rises up from out the sea…

Now let Hindus decide what does Vrishab means. It is also mentioned in Brahmana,

Kausitaki Brahmana 18.9 Him who yonder gives heat they seek by these pressings to obtain; the rising by the morning pressing, (the sun) in the middle (of his course) by the midday pressing, (the sun) as he sets by the third pressing. He, having entered the waters, becomes Varuna.

atharva veda 4/11/1 talks of bull in a metaphorical manner. the bull is representation of power. the Bull” here refer to the devatha of the hymn, thus metaphorising the strenghth of the devatha(deity) that sustain the earth. there is nothing unscientific here, the only thing is that you should understand the hymn by unveiling the metaphors. in other part of rig veda, indra and surya(sun) are also refered to as “bull”. now is sun(surya) bull? is indra who carries thunderbolt a bull? no. then the reason y indra/surya is refer to as bull is because bull is used as a metaphor of strength, and when the deities are referd to as Bull”, it simply symbolises the power of the deity. this concept is carried into other part of the Vedas and puranas too and thus, krsna refers arjuna as the “bull of bharatha”(bharatharshabha).the reason is because of the meataphoric use of bull as a symbolpf power and authority. the same goea to other verses of the vedas also in this context. now on, i will explain the verses of “scientific errors in vedas” from our next converdation begins. til then good bye and sweet dreams”. continue sprewing out crap and i will respond.

you can see it for yourselg in the same verse AV4/11/1 that bull is not literal. had it been literal, y does he verse say bull support “air region”(i.e.anthariksha-atmosphere) which is all around us and there is no reason for any person at any level of scientific knowledge, low or high, to say that the air is supported by bull. there is no reason to even to think that air is supported by a bull. hence the bull is metaphorical and its refering to the power of devatha(deity associated to da hymn) by which he sustain the world(comprising of earth/air region(atmosphere)/heavens(beyond atmosphere). its crytal clear now. as for the verse atharva veda 6/77/1 i have explained in detail and hav responded to your stupid “responses”-which dosent adress the real problem in literal interpretation- and have given interpretation based on reading the other parts of vedas and conrrelating them and hence not MY OWN. also the inner meaning connects all the verses in a logical sequence and expalins the apparent anomaly of adding up of apples and oranges if taken literally, which would not explain the essence of the verse.ohf course for people with prejudice and close mindedness, and hence cannot understand vedic metaphors, this would appear to be HILARIOUS. well for ,e what is more hilarious is the way you interpret the quran to fit in science, its too naive interpretation u giv. sorry.

also, it could be beter to continue our discussion via emails. it would be easie for me to message and send comments to you. the main problem is the word limit here, due to which i cant typ ethe whole thing i want to. and it would be easy to locate your responses to me if it through emails(dont think im faring of being embarised here at all, if you want you cab post all our disceussions here). here is my email id:[email protected] so see u next time through emails. thanks namathe.

-Saroj read the whole hymn. first , if the rushi says”firm are the hevens” then y he mentions suddenly about horses”

Response :Because he thought EARTH AND HEAVEN TO BE FIRM and horses are moving which you and me can even see. There is nothing to be looked for here.

which has no connection to the first part?

Response :It has first mentioned those things WHICH HE THOUGHT ARE STABLE AND then mentioned things which ARE MAKING according to him.

and then refering to agni and asking it to retrive cows? this is where you have to think of what the connceting link between the verses are these are not my interpretation,but these are based on other parts of the vedas. the vedas dolink universe to human body in many many instances as in unpanishads and purusha suktha(the main hymn in all the vedas) and horses to senses.t

Response : It is vedas and not Purana or upanishads. They even thought EARTH IS FIRM BY A BULL AND HEAVEN BY A PILLAR.

Rig Veda 6.72.2

DAYANAND : O lords of resplendence and bliss, you bestow light to the dawns; you upraise the sun with his splendour; you prop up the SKY with the SUPPORTING PILLAR of the firmament; you spread out the earth, the mother of all. [Rig Veda Samhita, By Satya Prakash Saraswati and Satyakam Vidyalankar, Vol 7, page 2331, 1980 edition, Published by Veda Ptatishthana, New Delhi]

Griffith : Ye, Indra-Soma, gave her light to Morning, and led the Sun on high with all his splendour. Ye stayed the HEAVEN with a SUPPORTING PILLAR, and spread abroad apart, the Earth, the Mother.

you r decptive now and is not adressing the real uissues. /’there is nothing to look for here” there is something to look for here because y does the rishi says”earth/heavn is firm” and then go “putting horses” in the same verse, ine after the other? it is becaue there is a link within then connecting it.if there is no connecting link between them, it would be like adding apples and oranges.two of them have no connection apparently,then no sane man would put them together. upanishads are part of vedas(vedas are divided into 4-brahmana, samhita,aranyaka n upanshd).the problem with your interpretation is that you dont think y the rshi talk of earth.heaven n then, in the same context, of horses. simply saying :Because he thought EARTH AND HEAVEN TO BE FIRM and horses are moving which you and me can even see.There is nothing to be looked for here” would not explain why the risho put these two mutually disconnected stuff in the same verse n hence the same context.. the link obetween them is explained from other parts of vedas itself n that i explaines above. also remember that traditionally puranas are considered as expalanations of vedas. thus puranas can be used to explain vedas to some degree. when you interpret vedas use the trasitional method of interpretation and not what you think.

rig veda6/72/2 explains indra/soma as forcs destroying evil and setting rtha(the natural order of things). and setting dharma. dharma and ritha are two very important concept in rig veda. dharma is many times used in the vedas as the force that sustains everything in the right order.the hymns in vedas are to be explained in line with dharma and ritha. dharma comes from the root “dhiri” meaning to “support”. thus the pillar here is a metaphor to the idea of dharma sustaining he order of heavens. this can be further understood clearly since the creation hyman in rig veda 10/CXC explains the creation from salila and it talks of creation of sun,moon,earth n dosnt…

Qur’an 17:81 And say: “Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish.”

I hope L-rd shows you signs and I know he will show everyone in his inner self.

Qur’an 41:53 Soon will We show them our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?

-Saroj Your own interpretation are hilarious. You Just don’t wanna accept reality but it doesn’t matter.

You said regarding FIRM STAND THE HEAVEN AND EARTH that horses are mentioned. I could have rebuked you by saying that HE MUST HAVE THOUGHT earth and heaven to be firm. And horses are moving which was observable but I m not Crack minded.

Anyway your comments: i read your answer properly.

“it dosent say earh was reduced wen humam inhabited it: ir does. the verse says that to unbeluvers, God reduced the land in their control. i

Response: Does the verse say TO UNBELIEVERS GOD REDUCED LAND. Please learn accepting truth It say ”We HAVE BEEN REDUCING” It’s clear. It’s not a metaphor God when gives parable of disbelievers he mentions it Consider Qur’an 2:17 for example.

i havent deceived abywhere i juz red the whole verse with an unbiased mind and draw the conclusion in its own context, which you deny and bring your own interpretation to brief case it with geological observations,

Response: Again that was your own interpretation. In other places also it is mentioned to meant ” We have been reducing”

Qur’an 13:41

Pickthall : See they not how we aim to the land, reducing it of its outlying parts?

Ali Ünal: Do they not see how We deal with the earth, reducing it of its outlying parts?

Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali: And have they not seen that We come up to the earth diminishing it in its extremities?

But Again I made the message reach you. It’s your own choice Quran 36:17 “And our duty is only to proclaim the clear Message.”

Quran 16:82 “But if they turn away, thy duty is only to preach the clear Message. ”

Quran 29:18 “But if ye deny, then nations have denied before you. The messenger is only to convey (the message) plainly. ”

Your own interpretation are hilarious. You Just don’t wanna accept reality but it doesn’t matter. You said regarding FIRM STAND THE HEAVEN AND EARTH that horses are mentioned. I could have rebuked you by saying that HE MUST HAVE THOUGHT earth and heaven to be firm. And horses are moving which was observable but I m not Crack minded.

read the whole hymn. first , if the rushi says”firm are the hevens” then y he mentions suddenly about horses” which has no connection to the first part? and then refering to agni and asking it to retrive cows? this is where you have to think of what the connceting link between the verses are these are not my interpretation,but these are based on other parts of the vedas. the vedas dolink universe to human body in many many instances as in unpanishads and purusha suktha(the main hymn in all the vedas) and horses to senses.this symbolism derived from the vedas itself connects the first part and second part of the verse:”by controlling the senses(horses, since vedas themselves refer to horses as senses in katha upanishad) ,one can make the whole body(earth/heaven/universe)” and this link conncets all the remainimg verses in a logical sequence. “i could have rebuked saying the author of the verses thought the earth was fixed…”but the problem is y to mention horses whih has no link to fixed earth? the problem is that then you cannot link this frst part with the next part of the verse”horses are put in the stall”. to resolve this apparent senseless sequence, one has to go to the symbolisms of these objects, and these symbolisms are explained in othrr parts of the Vedic texts.(like earth/heavens are linked to human body, in purusha suktha, in sithreya upanishad, and in syurveda and other texts as well) and horses to senses in gita and upanishads. thus these interpretations are not based on my concoted imagination, but based on references from vedas itself, i.e. i apply the ,metaphoric meaning that is used in Vedas…

pls quote my whole rsponse brother. the verse refers to the people at that time,

Response :Do you read my Answer, it speaks in General and you are giving your own interpretation. I also said it is also separately mentioned.

even if by reducing mass or by glaciers, it dosent manke a significant differnce to the land occupied by huma beings as long as they lived. the earth wasnt “200 times bigger” when human beings lived on earth,

Response : It doesn’t say Earth was started being reduced when human beings inhabited it.

or at least the piece of land on which they lived was never exeedingly big. even if the changes occured, it was ssmall and this s=desone make a signiiant change to the land area od human being considering ghem as their property.

Response : It was big atleast than this and it caused many changes whatsoever.

the verse describes God giving them luxurues and thus showin gthat God gives them everything in life. but to the wealthy ppl who r disbelivers, allah reduces the land (as their proprty because ths suits the context-first part mentions God giving them luxuries.land is considered as a property in every human society) from their borders.

Response :Already answered, your own interpretation.

now, if the verse refer to land reducing as jeffry brown states or glaciers reducing land says, then it is contradictory and senselss, since as long as human beings lived, there is no meteor attacks (as jeffry states) or glacier melts that reduced the land significantly as the properties of the people.

Response : It’s not talking when human beings lived. It is talking generally.

thus, any person can understand that this limking with modern science is flawed.

“it dosent say earh was reduced wen humam inhabited it: ir does. the verse says that to unbeluvers, God reduced the land in their control. if it does not refer to human beings lived earth at that time as u claim, y does the quran mentio God giving wealth to people and ttheir fathers and prolonging their life?

:it was big and then change whatsoever” i was bigmfine bit as long as human beings inhabited the earth, these cjhanges were far too small to reduce someone’s land.

“its not talkind about ppl living, but generally” look at the context brother, the vers says God gave luxuries to ppl and prolonged their life.God reduces their lands. why, is the verse is refering to geological theories that dosent affect the land properties of the people at that time, refer to the luxuris God gave to human beings in that verse itself? to out the verse in contextm it simply means that God reduces the land as their property,thus reducing the wealth they had. to understnad the whole verse logically , in context, ximply means God gives wealth to them, wen they turn away from God , he takes reduces their lands that is their wealth. thus if you consider the context of the verse, ND of the hymn, the above mening fits n has nothing to do with the goelogical changes you bring up here brother.

thus , wen you bring up the “sientific meaning”, you simply skid away from the original context which can be clearly understood by reading the whole verse and brong your own interpretation that does not match the context of the verse. worse, if you read the meaning you brought with the context, it becomes obscur and obnoxious.

i havent deceived abywhere i juz red the whole verse with an unbiased mind and draw the conclusion in its own context, which you deny and bring your own interpretation to brief case it with geological observations,

“you dont want to accept truth” i dont want to acccept concoted, out of contect interpretations of a verse like you have done.

any way i have written o the atharva veda verse 6/77/ ypu quoted, i shall look into other verses soon or afterwards. stay tuned, it wud take a lot of time. a nitpicking of veda verses wud never help fpr that a wider reading is required.do, i need time to explain atharva veda6/44.

the verse restricts to people’ time. because read the first few verses of the hymn where unblivers doubt the prophethood of the prophet. thus the whole hymn deals with the people at that time.the inner meaning might be universal. at least the whole hymn refer to the time when human beings exist on the planet.simply nitpicking parchments of my comments without readin th whole thing is not going to work brother.

As these radioactive elements decay, they give off heat (called RADIOGENIC heat). In fact, about four percent of the heat at the Earth’s surface comes from inside it!In the process of releasing this energy, the elements also lose mass. (1) Melting of ice in the polar regions Global sea level riseis caused by two factors. One is the delivery of water to the ocean as land ice melts,such as mountain glaciers and polar icecaps. The second factor is thethermal expansion of waterwithin the oceans. As the temperature of the waters in the oceans rises and the seas become less dense, they will spread, occupying more surface area on the planet. Increased temperature will accelerate the rate of sea level rise. (2) Because sea level is rising thus the land of the earth is decreasing. Reduction at poles Standing on Earth’s surface can not see the small changes in Earth’s shape but researchers have been watching the equator shrink (reduce in size)slowly over the past few decades with satellites,a process that they believe has been going on since the last ice age 18,000 years ago. Since the ice age, glaciers at the poles have been melting slowly as global temperatures warm, allowing magma under Earth’s crust to move towards the poles once the heavy weight of ice was no longer squashing them. This allowed the equator to shrink (reduce in size)as the molten rock (magma) moved away. For the past four years, however, Earth has been doing something quite different.Researchers at Raytheon and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center have been watching the equator grow larger.(3) So when the equatorial diameter of the Earth expands under the effect of the force,…

44. Nay, We gave the luxuries of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them. See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will overcome.

Response : You Quoted full verse and then.

so it refers to God giving enough luxuries to people(dsbelivers) and prolonged life. and then God reduces the land in theor control from its borders

Response :Not THEN, that is a different part and you own words.

It is even separately mentioned in Qur’an 13:41 Which I already said.

,that is they start losing their wealth that God gave them.also it refers to the people at that time.

Response :You are giving your Own interpretation. This is wrong to do with the Holy book. It is a separate, why are you joining them.

Qur’an 13:41

Shakir: Do they not see that We are bringing destruction upon the land by curtailing it of its sides?

Ali Ünal: Do they not see how We deal with the earth, reducing it of its outlying parts?

Shabbir Ahmed: Don’t they see that every day on earth brings them closer to the end?

hence i fail to see a “scientific miracle ” lurking within it

Response : You failed because you were using Deception MAYBE And giving your own interpretation. You failed to analyse it was discussed in other parts without it.

pls quote my whole rsponse brother. the verse refers to the people at that time, even if by reducing mass or by glaciers, it dosent manke a significant differnce to the land occupied by huma beings as long as they lived. the earth wasnt “200 times bigger” when human beings lived on earth, or at least the piece of land on which they lived was never exeedingly big. even if the changes occured, it was ssmall and this s=desone make a signiiant change to the land area od human being considering ghem as their property. the verse describes God giving them luxurues and thus showin gthat God gives them everything in life. but to the wealthy ppl who r disbelivers, allah reduces the land (as their proprty because ths suits the context-first part mentions God giving them luxuries.land is considered as a property in every human society) from their borders. now, if the verse refer to land reducing as jeffry brown states or glaciers reducing land says, then it is contradictory and senselss, since as long as human beings lived, there is no meteor attacks (as jeffry states) or glacier melts that reduced the land significantly as the properties of the people. thus, any person can understand that this limking with modern science is flawed.

-Saroj Just because you can’t comprehend THE Quran that’s not the problem of Qur’an.

Your comment : as for reduction of arth’s ladnmass,.Then do they not see that We set upon the land, reducing it from its borders? So it is they who will overcomeme?

the verse says God decreases the landmass from the borders, that is decrease interms of the size,not mass.

Response :Please see what you are saying Decrease the land mass from Outlying parts. When Mass from Outlying parts gets decreased, EARTHS mass automatically is reduced. You are saying the same thing. Mass got reduced, Isn’t it.

. ypu gave me reference to prof.keff brwon who says earth’s mass is increasing due to meteors coming to earth. now the both prf,jeff’s statemen and quran 21/44 has nothing to do with each other. one describe’s God reducing the land of people and the other relating to increase in earth’s mass due to meteor collision. so what is your point here bro? why did you bring this prof.jeff brown’s statement here in connection to this verse?i dont see a way to reconcile this two.

Response:HE says it’s reducing. I didn’t Quoted whole article, it is too long. He has stated earth used to be 200 time bigger than the current.

As far as the guy who talked about glaciers has nothing to do with it.

In other places it is repeated.

Qur’an 13:41 See they not how we aim to the land, reducing it of its outlying parts?

as for reduction of arth’s ladnmass,.Then do they not see that We set upon the land, reducing it from its borders? So it is they who will overcomeme?

the verse says God decreases the landmass from the borders, that is decrease interms of the size,not mass. ypu gave me reference to prof.keff brwon who says earth’s mass is increasing due to meteors coming to earth. now the both prf,jeff’s statemen and quran 21/44 has nothing to do with each other. one describe’s God reducing the land of people and the other relating to increase in earth’s mass due to meteor collision. so what is your point here bro? why did you bring this prof.jeff brown’s statement here in connection to this verse?i dont see a way to reconcile this two.

one guy even tried to go to the limit of telling me that this verse refers to “land reducing due to ice and glaciers melting due to global warming” the crux here is to understand the context of the verse. the verse states thus: 44. Nay, We gave the luxuries of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them. See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will overcome. so it refers to God giving enough luxuries to people(dsbelivers) and prolonged life. and then God reduces the land in theor control from its borders,that is they start losing their wealth that God gave them.also it refers to the people at that time. hence i fail to see a “scientific miracle ” lurking within it.it has nothing to do with “land reducing due to glaciers” because it first of all refers to the people at that time to whom the prophet was delivering the message.this is clear from the first few verses where we see the people doubting the prophethood of the prophet.at that time 1400 years ago,significant land reduction due to glacier melting did not happen at all.moreover, the land reduction in this manner is very gradual and it does not sigificantly affect anyone’s land properties as the verse says. thus if it refer to God reducing land properties by allowing the melting of glaciers, then it is obnoxius on the side of God to do it.note the verse refers to rducing the land property a a person’s wealth, not as surface of he earth being swallowed by the glaciers.thus sorry, there is no significant scientific mracle here, undestanding the context, we come to know the verse is tlking from an entirely different perspective and has nothing to do with the premises of geology. also, looking at other verses would refute the notion that the verse refers to melting of ice caps(i hav epolained this above).thus the similarity it shares with geology is only apparent and at the surface. it is not a good…

Dr. Kamal Omar And He it is Who created the night and the day; and the sun and the moon. ALL (these) move swiftly in an orbit (in space)

Sahih International : And it is He who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; ALL [heavenly bodies] in an orbit are swimming.

Ali Ünal: It is He Who has created the night and the day and the sun and the moon. EVERY ONE(of such celestial bodies) floats in its orbit.

Syed Vickar Ahamed: And it is He Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon: ALL (the heavenly bodies) go along, each in its rounded path.

And they have different ORBITS

QUR’AN 36:40 Farook Malik: Neither it is possible for the sun to overtake the moon, nor for the night to outstrip the day: each floats along in its OWN ORBITS.

Dr. Munir Munshey: It is not ordained for the sun to overtake the moon, nor for the night to outpace the day. Each, (the sun and the moon), is afloat in its RESPECTIVE ORBIT!

Dr. Mohammad Tahir-ul-Qadri: Neither can the sun (deviate from its orbit and) overtake the moon, nor can the night precede the day, and all (the stars and planets) are moving in their RESPECTIVE ORBITS .

Syed Vickar AhamedIt is not allowed for the sun to overtake the moon, nor can the night overtake the day: Each (can only) stay on in ITS OWN PATH (according to the Order of Allah).

Yousuf Ali: He created the heavens and the EARTH in true (proportions): He makes the Night overlap the Day, and the Day overlap the Night: He has subjected the SUN and the MOON (to His law): EACH ONE follows a course for a time appointed.

Dr. Kamal Omar: He has created the heavens and the EARTH with purpose. He makes the night cover the day; and He makes the day to cover the night. And He has regulated and controlled the SUN and the MOON; ALL(kullun) SWIFTLY MOVE (in space) for an appointed term.

Now analyse the verse(it’s a single verse remember) First it tells about EARTH Then about DAY and NIGHT Then SUN and MOON And then say ALL are moving in orbits

Well! What will ALL refer to here, obviously ALL(earth, sun and moon – celestial bodies)

This is a very nice verse. All remember We will still see the word used

(kullun) eachN– nominative masculine indefinite noun اسممرفوع

The word KULLU means ALL, EVERY OR EACH ONE.

Usage in other places

Qur’an 3:185 Every(kullun) soul shall taste death.

Therefore this word will include every celestial bodies in previous verse and this is a single verse makes argument very strong.

i would urge yu to rread the whole hyman and correlate with other parts of vedic corpus.also look at the dangers u enter with literal inerpretation. atharva veda 6/77 in its entirety is here:Firm stands the heaven, firm stands the earth, firm stands this universal world, Firm stand the rooted mountains. I have put the horses in the stall. 2I call the Herdsman, him who knows the way to drive the cattle forth, Who knows the way to drive them home, to drive them back and drive them in. 3O Jātavedas turn them back: a hundred homeward ways be thine! Thou hast a thousand avenues: by these restore our kine to us.

first verse say “firm is earth/heavem/universe”,okay.but siddenly it says”horses are put to stall”.if it is to be take literally,y should the text put “firmimg earh and hevans” and “horses to stall” subsequently?no sane person would do that. this confusion can be removed only of you understand the significance of earth/heaven in this context. in vedas,esp.purusha suktha, the whole universe is metaphored to a human body.syur veda says”just as is universe,so is the human body”. also, in aithreya upanshd, the whole universe is related to a human body n various cosmic deities are related to human body parts(like surya to eye,vayu to breath,chandra to mind,etc.)tus metaphorising human body as universe is very much there in vedic txt. the next mention is of horse. horses represent senses. in katha upanishad, horses refer to senses and human body is likened to a chariot.this veil of symoblism links the “firming earth/heavens” to stalling “horses”;applying the symbolic meaning, the verse says by controlling thw senses(i.e.horses), the human body(represented by earth’heavens/universe) is thus fixed/firmed, i.e. controlled. having done this, in verse 3, jathaveda is invioked. jathaveda is agni,fire.fagni, here refers to paramathma, the “agni” within one’s heart that destroys darkness/ignorance if invoked. and the…

jathaveda:i.e.to control the senses and thus the whole body. after invoking jathaveda, the cows are retrived. cows, if you look into various hymns of rig veda refer to “light”,kowledge, or something that takes us higher planes of consciousness. thus the meaning of the wholy hymn, when critically examining the verses and connecting them in a logicl sequence by unveiling the symbolisms, we come to a very spiritual insight: that to reach higher levels of spirituality(represented by the “cows”), one has to invoke paramathma(the light that destroys darkness of ignorance and takes us higher) and for that the first thing to do is to control one’s sense gratification(lust.gred et.) and thus control the whole body.(like starting from controlling the motion of your hand to slap someone wen getting angry,contrllg one’s tongue to utter bad word, even going to control one’s hunger and other bodily needs to some extend)by controlling the senses one can control the body and its activities. that is the meaning opf the whole hymn. for this, the reader shuld hav some prerequisit knowledge if you take a blind literal interpretation, you would ener into contradictions and senseless arrangement of verses. the wole hymn makes logical sense when the metaphoric veil is lifted up. for this, as i said, one has to have some prerequisite knowledge of hinduism and its symbolism.for this, he should read more books.

its funny to see how you branded it as “not metaphrical”.the whole hymn takes to a different level of understanding wen the metaphors are understood.

Usage إندحَّ بطنه إندحاحاّ اي إتّسع His tummy became round and bigger. In Prophet Muhammad’s Hadith: كان لأسامة بطننٌ مُندحٌ اي متسع Osama had a round and big tummy. و بطنٌ مُنداحُ أي خارخٌ مُدوّر His tummy is mun-daahun means it is OUT THERE AND ROUND مُدوّر. و رجلٌّ دحدحُ اي قصير غليظ البطن A man is dahda-hun which means he is short, stocky and has a big and fat tummy. الدحداح هو المستدير الململم The dahdaah is the person who is ROUND and STOCKY. الدِردِحة من النساء التي طولها و عرضها سواء Al-dir-dihati from the women is the one whose height and width look the same! SHE LOOKS ROUND,and the by the way, the distance between the earth’s north and south poles is approximately only 45 miles shorter than the earth’s width.

-Saroj Anyway you want to take it METAPHOR, you can take it. Bible also say ENDS OF EARTH, I was guessing in this way even if book’s says earth is FLAT, it can be defended by saying it is a metaphor and refers to a piece of land.

1. 21:44 of Qur’an will address your claims, whatever you say. Regarding that you said

-but these verses dosent mean the mass/size is reducing.in the scientific way.

Sahih International: Then do they not see that We set upon the land, reducing it from its borders?

Dr. MUNIR Munshey: Do they not notice? We keep on shrinking the land from all sides.

Dr. Mohsin Khan: See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders?

It is clear and should be taken it that way.

Now regarding EGG-SHAPED 21:44 still covers it but Ostrich EGG is like earth. It is exactly same, you have based your theories on some normal hens egg.

However there were Qur’an scholars after prophet’s time who told that DAHAHA meant SPHERE.

One of them in Ibn Tayimmah(may Allah be pleased with him) This is recorded in his commentries (Vol. 5, p. 150) All the people of then believed in same. It is with coming of Suyuti(17th century) (May Allah be pleased with him) that view changed but he was not a scientist and in this matter mistake can happen.

it is basically a metaphor .this is because of two points (1)the rig veda also says that the earth si “bowl shaped”and in many many verses “hemispherre”. if it were to be taken literally, alomg with the verses that state earth is “four cornered”, then this would be in contradiction. the contradiction can be resolved only when ewe understand the fact that the Vedas do use a lot of metaphors. and the meaning of the usage of the word ends radically different from ome context to another. in the context of verses like atharva veda 20/88/1, AV 15/7/1,RV 4/50/1 , it all refers to the cosmogenetical aspect wherein the original flux without form is given a form by a “mighty constrain: by brhspathi” and thus defines the form of the gross elements of the universe(represented by the earth) bhy setting its limits(i.e. ends). this is logical and is not difficult to understand.

on ohter cases like in rig veda7/83/3. it is NOT from a cosmological aspect, the context being dual forces indra/varuna destroying darkness(evilness) and spreading ligh and saving the worshipper from evil. here in this verse, “boundaries are seen in darkness”, meaning the darkness(evilness) has pervaded the entire world. to “go to the ends” is a metapor that is widely used in Vedas relatng to completely pervading something. like if i say, i reached the end of that place”, it means that i have covered the whole place and reached the end. in this conext(rv 7/83/3) which you quoted, darkness/evil forces covers the entire world and thus “boundaries of earth are seen in darkness”, and the next verse is perfectly in this context,where the worshipper in the midst of this cries to indra/varuna for help.

the problem is people dont read the whole hymn in the light of its context and draw half boiled conclusions.

further more in aithreya brahmana, we find a very interesting verse describing the rising and stting of the sun. the Aitareya Brahmana (3.44) declares:“The Sun does never set nor rise. When people think the Sun is setting it is not so. For after having arrived at the end of the day it makes itself produce two opposite effects, making night to what is below and day to what is on the other side. Having reached the end of the night, it makes itself produce two opposite effects, making day to what is below and night to what is on the other side. In fact, the Sun never sets.”

the four corners are only metaphors to the four directions,that is beyond doubt because if you look at shatapatha brahmana 6.1.2.29, the verse clearly states that “quarters(that is , the directions) are earth’s ends”. if the verse was intended to be literal, then the shatapatha brahmana could not have said that the “directions (which are abstract points based on sun’s rising and setting)are physical corners”.this itself means that the usage is metaphorical. because every man with common sense can understand that directions are not physical and if the verses were literal mannered, then it would create contradiction with other verses stating that eath is bowl shaped. this contradiction proves my point sir. many many verses in rig veda does say that the earth is bowl shaped hemisphere. this contradiction points to the fact that each addressing of earth is metaphoric and has to unveiled and understood in its own context. that is y i say they are metaphors.

egg shape is NOT accurate and i explained it above with in the comment in which i gave lnks to ostrich egg (prolate spheroid) and to oblate spheroid(earth’s shape).the only thing you shpow is the 2d projection of fron view whereas the 2d projetions of both top and side view are contradictory.

From another vantage point, we find that today, too, the world is divided into two Easts — a near East and a far East — and two Wests — a near West, referring to Europe, and a far West, meaning America.

the point to be noted is that the four corners of earth mentioned in Vedas just refer to the four cardinal directions, in reference to a yajna. because in shatapatha brahmana the four corners are clearly mentioned as the “quarters” or directions. yes from point to point on earth surface, the directions change,like you said two easts” and two wests. but here in the context of Vedas this does not create a contradiction because, (1), the four crners refer to the direction in general, and two, the directions are marked in referne to the frame of rfernce of the yajna, at a particular place,which is constant. tus the point of view should be taken into consideratio

1. The word used Is ” Pritvi” which refers to whole earth. It’s not Arabic where ARD mean both earth as well as piece of land.

Reading in context tells that it actually meant end.

Consider this: It is talking of a man who visited ends making it clear.

Atharva Veda 20.88.1 Him who with might hath propped earth’s ends

Second explanation you said it refers to North, South, east and west. Which is also wrong as we have two easts and two wests do you know that. he earth is round because two Easts and two Wests can come about only when the earth is round; for when the sun rises over one region it sets in another, and when it sets in one sphere it rises in another. Thus the actuality of two Easts and two Wests can clearly be seen. Now let us look at the inner or spiritual world of man. It is an established fact in the physical world that the reason for the rising and setting of the sun is that, in the course of the earth’s revolution, whichever half of the earth faces the sun gets the sunrise and becomes bright. Similarly, the other half of the earth which is turned away from the sun, or which, in a manner of speaking, has its back to the sun, experiences the setting of the sun and its consequent darkness. The same thing happens in the spiritual world. Any nation that turns its face towards guidance finds that the sun of guidance and progress begins to shed its rays on it, and this is so whether the enlightenment is physical or spiritual. In other words, to whatever kind of education a man directs his attention, the sun of that kind of guidance shines on him. On the other hand, if a nation turns its face away from guidance it will be enveloped in the darkness of decadence and perdition. Thus, there is one East that pertains to the physical growth and perfection and another East that relates to spiritual advancement and perfection

this verse has a totally different expalanation . i gave that above since for this, you have to look into the original vedic cosmogenesis. as per vedic cosmogenesis, the entire universe originally is salilam-waters-a continus obscure flus. brhaspathi then gives a mighty constrain upon it that original waters. the existence out of wich all manifetations arise is this limitless obscure fliud. unto this brhaspathi exerts the mighty force(as stated in the verse atharva veda 20/88/1 and rig veda 4/50/1).that produces the limits and defentions. in the original form, there are no limits and defenitions, hece it is a fliud without proper form/manifestation. but now, brhaspathi exerts this force that causes its lmits and defenitions and thus the “ends” here refer to these limits that define the form. every form is defined by its limits(ends/antha in sanskrith.) thus, here the meaning of the verse is that brhaspathi exerts a mighty constrain on the initial limitless waters that defines the form and thus distinguisged the manifested universe from the unmanifested salilam. this is the context of the verse(both atharva veda 20/88/1 and rig veda 4/50/1). for this you should know some prerequisit information about vedic cosmology.which you dont have and i explained this verse above in detail. thus the usage of “ends” in this verse is not refeing to directions, but to the limits that define a form of an object. if an object is not defined by a limits,then it cannot have a form and thus it is like the original waters. the ame goes to atharva veda 15/7/1.

now coming to four ends used in other part of the vedas. here the context is entirely different from the aove verse ich you quoted and mixed up. i dont uinderstand how it is not “fitting”? because the shatapatha brahmana 6.1.2.29 clearly mentiones this that the quarters are her ends”.the quarters in vedic terminilogy refer to the four directions of the compass. in relation to the earth, the four ends simply…

contd… four cardinal directions. the confusion comes when we see the verse sayong”the directions are earth’s four corbers”.thus is because we tend to take it literally. but the vedic pictures are always to be taken in a metaohoric manner. the reason behind this “four ends of earth as directions” is because all the important activities are based on the directions,such as yajna,etc. also the veda do mention the earth as hemisphere and “bowl shaped also”. now if you take these phrases literally, then you end up in a comtradiction because on one hand vedas mention earth as “four cornered” and other , as bowl shaped”/this apparent and literal contradiction arises because both the usages are metaphoric. when the veda uses especially “four cornered earth”, it excusively refer to the four cardinal directions since this is clealy stated in shatapatha brahmana6.1.2.29,where it says the “quarters(directions) are earth’s corners”. this itself means that the comparison to bricks and he usage “ends” is purely ,metaphoric. thus i dont think it is not “fitting”.

and yu first statement”a man visiting the ends make it clear”/ the response to this i gave originally. to “go to the ends” is a metaphoric term denoting the man pervades the whole suraface. if the “man goes to the ends of the earth” it means he covers/pervades the whole earth,by his might,powers etc. its like , if i reach the end of something, it subsequantlh mean i have covered the whole thingtill the end,thus i pervade the whole thing. thus this example makes it clear. also remember, the metaphorical meaning of the word “ends” takes different forms from contecxt to context. for tis you should know the background of the verses ypu deal with, and also the different ways in which the word “end” can be meaning.

while for earth, the shape is oblate spheroid. this is because since the earth rotates, due to maximum centrifugal force at the equator, the quator bulges out uniformly in all directions along the equitorial plane . this makes the top view(the 2D shape you see when you view it from the above) a circle with radius as the smi major axis of the front view. the side view, however (from right or left) for the earth is the same as front view. that is because earth, unlike ostrich egg, is oblate spheroid. the proper shape for earth to compare is a pumkin., since the shape of a pumkin is oblate spheroid and it matches with all the three 2d projections i discussed above. the shape of oblete spheroid is here:https://www.google.co.in/search?q=oblate+spheroid&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI763ItbOjyAIVitIaCh1zDAGD#imgrc=kaH2yEeA1Gr1gM%3A now compare both the shapes and visualise the points i discussed. what you said is scientifically wrong from its root itself. thus the result-earth and ostrich egg are not of the same shape.

“again you repeated your false notions”. the false notions is not mine but yours. and above, i have refuted them properly with references. well you are not ready to understand things properly, then stay in ignorance that earth is ostrich egg shape… i hv given the links to the prolate spheoid shape of ostrich egg and oblate spheroid ahpe of earth, look and if you have any sense, notice the great differnce between them from a 3d perspective. comparing ostrich egg and earth is like comparing a a cuboid and cylinder-bothe their front view are rectanular, but top view(cylinder-circle,cuboid-sqaure/rectangle) are different. you can only fool fools with this comparison and with this baseless argument(“response”) of yours.not all.

top view means the 2d view you see when you look at it from top for eath, this top view is circle. for ostrich egg it is ellipse. i gave both the liks above. for earth the side view(2d figure you see when you loom at the 3d object from right side or left side) is ellipse(same as the front). for osrrich egg this side view is a crcle with semi minor axis as the radius). this is the difference between oblate spheroid(earth) and prolate spheroid(ostrich egg). understand this from the links i gave aabove.

all your comments above shows howmuch stupidity and ignorance you sprew out. take in some logic and 3d visualisation in your head bro.

-Saroj Again same you repeated. First your false notions. Don’t know on what you based them.

-and 21:33 of qurn says: “we created night and day and sun and moon and all heavenly bodies are swimming in orbit” wgere is “earth diminishing” here? and “diminishing in land” dosent mean the mass is decreasing, only that the area is decreasing. so i dont see any “interesting” scientific proof here bro.

Response :Sorry the reference is 21:44. 33rd verse talks about motion of sun moon and earth.

And 44th verse talks about reducing Earth

Qur’an 21:44 Ali Unal: We deal with the earth, reducing it of its outlying parts?

Sahih International: Then do they not see that We set upon the land, reducing it from its borders?

Dr. MUNIR Munshey: Do they not notice? We keep on shrinking the land from all sides.

Dr. Mohsin Khan: See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders?

Jeff Brown,astronomer, Washington State University, it’s well-known that several hundred tons of meteorites enter the Earth’s atmosphere every day. The total amount per year can range from 10 million to 1 billion kilograms. (A kilogram is about 2.2 pounds.) A lot of this is just dust or micrometeorites, but it adds up. Let’s say an average of 500 million kilograms a year has landed on Earth over the past 10,000 years. That’s 5 trillion kilograms. Or 5 billion metric tons. Any way you figure it, that’s a lot of rock! HOWEVER, now let’s think about the Earth for a little bit. And about how BIG it is. In fact, it’s too big to describe easily in words, so let’s switch to the method scientists use to indicate big numbers. The mass of the Earth is over 5 x 1021 metric tons! (That’s a 5 with 21 zeroes…

but these verses dosent mean the mass/size is reducing.in the scientific way.

i have also responded to your frivolus and unscientific claims”earth is ostrich egg shape/ top view is semi spherical ec”on october 2. read that also. and see where your claims stand. read that in detail until you understand some basic laws of science and physics. the earth is oblete spheroid and ostrich egg(and for that matter any egg) is prolate shperoid. the front view of both is ellipse. but the difference comes in side view and top view. now you say that the top view of earth is “semi sphericl”.are you really idiot or acting like one? top view means the 2 dimensional projection when you loo at the objest from above. for earth the top view is circle with semimajor axis in the front view as radius.the reason i told is because since the earth is rotsting, the equator bulges out ,making the top view a circle with higher radius(equal to the smi major axis of the front view’). keeping the ostrich egg in the same alignment as the earth, i.e. horizontal,if you look from above, the top view represents the same what you see from the front-an ellipse.this is the majpr difference. again if you look from the side of the earth, it represents an ellipse(the same as that of the front view).but for the ostrich egg, the side view, or the 2 dimensional fihure you see when you look at it from right side/left side, it is a circle with the semiminor axis as the radius. this is because the shape of earth and ostrich egg are different-one is oblete spheroid(earth) and thr other is prolate spheroid. read the comments properly with something in your head brother.simply jumping to write a “reponse” without having basic knowledge and understanding is an act of stupidity.

i have also responded to your claims of “scientific errors in veda on shape of earth” also rwd that with an unbiased and calm mind.

as for the word “ends” these are not to be taken as literal, one, the word “ends” are here metaphors. in these verses , to move to the ends mean to pervade the whole earth. for example,av 15.7, “he moved by his moving majesty to the ends of the earth”,simply means he,by his majesty, pervaded the entire earth,not in a literal manner. this is because in rig veda we also find reference to earth and hevens as “bowls” and “hemispheres ” too which has no “ends” or “corners”. this contradiction leads to the the fact that these are used in a metaphoric manner. if the vedic seers actually belived that the earth had ends then they would not call earth and heavens as bowls and hemispheres also. this is because the vedas use metaphoric and figurative phrases. when the verses use “hemispheres” it refers to earth and heavens as two halves of the whole, making a family(tat is metaphoric). in these verses, earth and heavens are refered to as “mother and father”thus reering to a family too. in shatapatha brahmana, the four corners refer to the four cardinal directions.

the crux in understanding the verses describing “four cornered/sided earth” is to look properly at shatapatha brahmana verse 6.1.2.29 it says”earth is 4 cornered .THE QUARTERS ARE HER (EARTH’S)CORNERS”. THE quarters refer to the four cardinal directions-north east west and south.and this also fits the context because, the whole of this portion describes the yajnia process, where directions play a key role.a deity is associated with each direction. thus when you try to understand/interpret vedic verses you should look into the complete veda and read them throughout the hymns completely,and understand the veiled metaphors and figures of speech there. this can be understood to some extend by also looking at the internal contradictions ,f.x. like some verses state earth as bowl shaped and some others as “four cornered”,thus each has its own meaning in its own context and cannot be taken as literally due to this apparent contradiction.

and the atharva veda 20.88 refers to the creation of universe.by brhaspathi.the same is repeated in rig veda 4/50. here, we find in the first part, brhaspathi “propping apart earth’s limits by great might”.to know the meaning of this, you must know thebackground of hindu cosmology which is found elsewhere in rig veda. in the beginning there is unfathomable waters. the existence out of which all comes out is an obscure, fliud and indeterminate mivement called as salilam, or waters.this is there in every ancient cosmology i guess .the first neccessity is to form a sufficient stable formation out of this flux and brahmanaspathi does it by applying a sort of mighty constraint on it and forms out the earth(th gross part of the universe,) and sets its limits and defenittions,wich are refered to as the “ends” here. thus the ends here refer to the limits that set the form of the earth and heavens.and this gross stable,well defined form*with limits* is formed from an obscure =, limitless fliud(without proper form) by applying a mighty constraint.this “mighty constraint” is what is refered to as the “bands that fixes earth” in rig veda10/149/1.(which many misinterpret as earth being fixed by physical bands) in a figurative manner. thus this knots us two entirey separated hymns with a common meaning explanation of creation. thus this verse is not an error,the problem is the person who qoted this as the error does not look into the cosmological background of the Vedas. two things that are very important is, one, the awareness that there are metaphors used, and two, to have a very thourough bavkground knowledge of Vedas that would heplus understand the verses properly. this verse can only be undrstood if you knew about the universe forming out of the primordial waters(a uniform flux) called as salilam-in which case the “propping of ends” refers to the formation of the earth universe with fixed limits and defenitions(which determine the form) from the waters that…

contd… is not deined with its limits and premises. thus understanding with the corret background of vedic cosmology,there is no scientific “error” here at all, the only thing is that the meaning the phrase “propped the ends” takes a different one when interpreted in the light of vedic cosmogenesis,. the same meaning goes to the verse 4/50/2 0r RV. now about AV 15.7.1: “HE BY HIS moving majesty went to the ends of the earth,he became the ocean” now,correlate this with the above explanation,earth is formed from the primordial waters.earth is formed by exerting a force on the waters that sets the limits and defeitions (i.e., the ends)and and defines the form of the earth.here he,(prajapathi) pervades set limits of the earth(i.e. the gross elements of the universe)(by the force exerted) and becomes the sea(that is, the primordial ocean). thus, the meaning of this verse is simple-that the primordial limitless ocean pervades the earth that is formed from it by exerting the might that defines the forms.that is why the verse says,”by his moving majesty he went beyond the ends(set limits and defenitions of the gross universe) and he became the ocean”,anything that comes out of the hold of this constrian, at once, loses its form/manifestation and collapsess and becomes one with the ocean of infinity. we have seen above that the “force” is what defines the “ends” or the limits that defines the form.yondering it, one becomes liberated and enters the formless,boundless infinity. thus the inner spiritual meaning of this verse is that, one must come out of the material clutches and then one is free from this world and enters into infinity. this is called as mukthi/moksha in hinduism..the gross cosmological concept that i discussed above is in metaphorical parrallel to the subtle spiritual concept of mukthi/moksha. thus the seeds of very hindu thoughts can be found in Vedas itself.later on, this were expressed in very different ways in puranas and other…

RV 7.83.3 the whole hymn describes indra/varuna(indra-the aspet that destroys darkness, and varuna as the aspect that spreads lightness) as forces destroying evil forces(darkness) nd establishing lightness(goodness). the verse says that the earths’ boundaries(limits) were covered in darkness and indra/varuna hers the call of the worshipper and by his cry(ravena) destroys the enemies. the meaning is that, the enemies have encompassed the whole earth with their evil forces and in the midst of it, the worshipper cries to indra/varuna for help. i have already shown you that the ends/boundaries are refering to the set limits that are established by the “mighty constrain upom the waters” that defines the earth,thus, when “boundaries of earth are seen in darkness” is stated, it means that the whole earth is encompassed by the evil forces, and the worshipper in middle of that cries to indra/varuna,as i stated. for this, you should read the whole hymn and know its context and have some basic knowledge of vedic cosmogenesis and its idea of creation (like the waters forming into the universe).without that, you can only cherry pik verses ,which from outside means totally obscure and meningless,but when understood in the light of the actual background knowledge(which is spread across the rig veda and other vedas), it gives beautiful meanings and spiritual insights. for this ,the reader should have a clear mind, without hatred or prejudice,or preconceived notion that vedas are nonsense.which unfortunately many lack.

Continued from previous… Narrated Abu Huraira: “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “I have been sent with Jawami al-Kalim (i.e., the shortest expression carrying the widest meanings),and I was made victorious with awe (caste into the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the earth were brought to me and were put in my hand.” Muhammad said, Jawami’-al-Kalim means that Allah expresses in one or two statements or thereabouts the numerous matters that used to be written in the books revealed before (the coming of) the Prophet. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Interpretation of Dreams, Volume 9, Book 87, Number 141)”

So it’s clear that both YOUSUF ALI’S AND OTHERS TRANSLATION IS CORRECT.

so when we look at this verse Qur’an 79:30 It contains the word ” Ard” which means both EARTH AS WILL AS LAND.

the moment you say this, you are making a simple mistake. who told you the earth is not circle from top view. look from the tip of the axis. it is circle. why because earth is always spinning. the equitorial region experiences maximum centrifugal force due to which it expands. and by common sense, it can be concluded tht the expansion is uniform in all directions. now , due tio tis, this equitorial region actually looks like a circle in the top view. the word “semi sphere is wrong. because we are only looking at the 2 dimensional projection from the top view.THE TOP VIEW CANNOT BE “SEMI SPHERE OR ANYTHING IKE THAT SINCE IT IS 2 DIMENSIONAL. THUS YOU tell “top view is semi sphere”. thts stupidity bro.

lets take ostrich egg too. front view is like the earth.agreed. now turn to side view . for ostrich egg, too, the side view(2 dimensional projection of side view) is circle.for earth, its the same as front view-ellipse.

thus again we find this problem and you showed your scientific ignirance here brother.

this was my point. the front view is the only comparisoion of both earth and ostrich egg. ostrich egg and normal egg shape are same brother.the only different is size and ratios. thus sorry your comments make no sense.

the ostrich egg shape is prolate spheroid. and the earth is oblete shpheroid.this is a major difference. firt you should have some engineering background to understand this. the front view of both(earth n egg) are elliptical. the top views(two dimentional projection of the top view) of earth is circle and of ostrich egg is its front view itself(elliptical). now when you come to the side view of both(i.e. two dimentional projection of the side view) earth has its front view itself and the ostrich egg has a circle(with semi minor axis as radius). you are not using your brains here and is bringing wrong information. just think of both and then compare. and use your common sense .

brother what do you mean by saying that the top view is “semi sphercal shape”.this itself is wrong. in engineering languae wich describes a three dimentional object, top view,side view and front view refers to the two dimensional projections of what you see when you view from the top,side and front. thu your very usage”semi sherical shape” itself is incorect and senseless and it shows that you have no idea of what actually is meant by these terms. first learn them,and then come and debate.

the ostrich egg shape is prolate spheroid. and the earth is oblete shpheroid.this is a major difference. firt you should have some engineering background to understand this. the front view of both(earth n egg) are elliptical. the top views(two dimentional projection of the top view) of earth is circle and of ostrich egg is its front view itself(elliptical). now when you come to the side view of both(i.e. two dimentional projection of the side view) earth has its front view itself and the ostrich egg has a circle(with semi minor axis as radius). you are not using your brains here and is bringing wrong information. just think of both and then compare. and use your common sense .

and perhaps you should see what an ostrich egg looks like. it prolate sheroid wgeeras earth is oblete spherioid..

i have explaind in my first post itself how stupid this compasisin is, and you are simply beating around the bush. first read my above posts carefully and see the difference between ostrich egg shape(and aby egg for that matter) which is prolate sheroid and earth shape(oblete spheroid). thus difference is clearly given by the two dimensonal projections of the side view and top view of both. furthermore, if you say earth is ostrich egg shape, then the earth’s rotation should cause the equitorial region to shrink in, because in any manner the top view is to be a circle. but the actual cse is just the opposite, the equitorial region bulges out and this makes it circular*with semi major axis of the front view* as its radius.here itself the comparison fails. so learn something and then come and *clear our misconceptions*!

-Saroj thus when you compare egg shape to earth it is utter ignorance of basic laws of physics.

Response :It’s Ostrich EGG shape and what I said wad based on facts and not mere theories. Our Scholars debate at international level where the source is not an ordinary theory but facts and this one is also correct.

thus you screw yourself when you say that as per th quran, the earth is egg shaped.

Response :Ostrich egg shaped. Not egg shaped.

furthermore,please do know that this translation is coming from reinterpretation of the word dahaha by looking at the root word and going into it just to find a scientific meaning.

Response : I would advise you not to tell this because you don’t know ARABIC,leave that to us. We know very well what it means.

if this transaltaion is also correct and also that of yusuf ali , that cannot be proved wrong, then it means that the quran is an open book to any kind of interpretation and it bases on the knowledge of the reader/translator. thus the quran cannot be taken as a clear book, wvwn though it claims to be.

Response: Thanks for raising this point. In Qur’an there are 2 types of verses 1.Entirely Clear 2. Has two types A. Having multiple interpretations B. Allegorical or those whose best meaning is known to God alone.

Qur’an 3:7 He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses – which constitute the essence of the scripture – as well as MULTIPLE-MEANING or ALLEGORICAL VERSES.

Even PROPHET MUHAMMAD PBUH told about this

Narrated Abu Huraira: “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “I have been sent with Jawami al-Kalim (i.e., the shortest expression carrying the widest meanings),and I was made victorious with awe (caste into the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the earth were brought to me and were put in my hand.” Muhammad said, Jawami’-al-Kalim means that Allah expresses in one or two statements or…

Response: We don’t screw anything and the thing which is funny is AGNIVEERS LIES.

okay first lets see the word egg and compar it to earth.

Response: Not EGG it’s Ostrich EGG which is exactly as Earth. I hope you have seen it that’s why you will put forward your points.

compare earth and egg shape.

from view: earth is elliptical and ostrich egg is also elliptical.

THIS IS THE OLY COMPARISION YOU SHOW.

Response : Just because I wrote 1 doesn’t mean there is only one. Ostrich EGG is same as earth.

now lets turn to the top view: earth is circular shape(with the semimajor axis in the front view as the radious. this is because since the earth is rotating the equitorial region experiences maximum centrifugal force and bilges out. thus this radius at the equator is seen at the top view). for egg shape, the top view is also ellipse.

Response :Earth is SEMI-SPHERICAL from top view and not circular like OSTRICH EGG. It’s more like a convex lens upside down. 2. You were telling results of normal EGG and not OSTRICH EGG. 3. Earth rotates according to Qur’an so same phenomenon happens.

now lets look at the side view: earth is also elliptical as in the front view(same as front view). egg shape, the side view is circle with the semi minor axis of the front view *ellipse) as the radius.

Response: Same as above, this guy hadn’t seem Ostrich EGG. Results are very weak as could be seen concluded by him.

conclusion: thus the moment you say earth is egg shaped according to the quran you are actually proving the quran wrong brither. use your common sense before you speak.

Response : We know what we are proving. We use proper sense. So no need of your advises

thus in this comparision only 33% match can we find. nearly 66% does not match.this is not a good approximation at all.thus if you interpret this verse of the noble quran in this way, you dig up a dangerous hole for you and the scientific claims of you rleligion. so, sorry brother.

Response: DO you call it a comparison? You took a normal egg into consideration. An Ostrich EGG is same as Earth.

Atleast G-d’s word is flawless everywhere. See if there would have been some difference in EGG SHAPE OF OSTRICH and EARTH still Qur’an is 100% because EARTH SCIENTISTS TELL THAT earth has been reducing from the time it came into existence. They say it was 200 times bigger than current size.

And it’s a fact Here is one of the reputed EARTH SCIENTISTS OF THE WORLD. Professor Keller, who is a geologist, says the Earth also LOSES mass. All the time, we’re losing light elements,mostly hydrogen, from the atmosphere. Another way the Earth loses mass, says Professor Keller, is through radioactive decay. In case you didn’t know it, the Earth’s interior is peppered (introduce) with radioactive elements such as uranium. Radioactivity is the decay, or gradual disintegration, of the nuclei of radioactive isotopes. Isotopes are versions of elements that have the same number of protons as the regular element, but different numbers of neutrons.

As these radioactive elements decay, they give off heat (called RADIOGENIC heat). In fact, about four percent of the heat at the Earth’s surface comes from inside it!In the process of releasing this energy, the elements also lose mass.

AND WHATS INTRESTING IS THAT ALLAH(SWT) HAS MENTIONED THIS ALREADY IN GLORIOUS Qur’an

Qur’an 21:33 What, do they not see how We come to the land, DIMINISING it in its extremities? Or are they the victors?

and 21:33 of qurn says: “we created night and day and sun and moon and all heavenly bodies are swimming in orbit” wgere is “earth diminishing” here? and “diminishing in land” dosent mean the mass is decreasing, only that the area is decreasing. so i dont see any “interesting” scientific proof here bro.

your comment: do you call it a comparison? ostrich egg. not egg shape. ostrich egg iss same as earth.

ostrich egg and any(rather most) eggs for that matter have the same 3 dimensional shape-they are all prolate spheroid. earth is NOT prolate spheroid. it is oblate spheroid. both have a difference which i explained above and in the other posts below.

Response : It’s AGNIVEER who was telling lies and we don’t screw anything.

Ok let’s see the word egg and compar it to earth.

Response: It’s Ostrich EGG remember. I hope you have seen it that’s why you will put forward your points. we will also take every context to analyse it.

okay now compare earth and egg shape.

from view: earth is elliptical and ostrich egg is also elliptical.

THIS IS THE OLY COMPARISION YOU SHOW.

Response :There are many. Just because I wrote one doesn’t mean there is only one. Anyway let’s move.

now lets turn to the top view: earth is circular shape(with the semimajor axis in the front view as the radious. this is because since the earth is rotating the equitorial region experiences maximum centrifugal force and bilges out. thus this radius at the equator is seen at the top view). for egg shape, the top view is also ellipse.

Response: 1. Earth looks CIRCULAR from top view is wrong. It still looks like a SEMI-sphere or like a bowl upside down from top view. Same is the case with OSTRICH EGG. 2. You gave the description of a normal egg and not OSTRICH EGG 3. Earth is moving according to Qur’an so similar happens in that case.

now lets look at the side view: earth is also elliptical as in the front view(same as front view). egg shape, the side view is circle with the semi minor axis of the front view *ellipse) as the radius.

+Vajra You Just follow a Man who can write articles which even you and I can do. He can’t give a lecture before Non Hindus and after speech them to ask Questions because he knows he preaches falsehood.

The Arabic word for egg here is DAHAHA, which means an ostrich-egg. The shape of an ostrich-egg resembles the geo-spherical shape of the earth.

Agniveer: As expected, the translation of the above verse is NOT from YUSUF ALI, it’s a later day addition by apologists like Dr. Naik. Here are the three reputed translations:

YUSUFALI: And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse); PICKTHAL: And after that He spread the earth, SHAKIR: And the earth, He expanded it after that.

Al-Taqiyya is at play and Dr. Naik deviates from his assurance that he would quote from Yusuf Ali. He created his own translation!!! *Not a single scholar worth his salt translated dahaha as egg-shaped*.

Response :Nor even A SINGLE Let’s see

Ali Ünal: And after that He has spread out the earth in the *EGG-SHAPED* (for habitability)

QXP-Shabbir Ahmed: And after that He made the earth shoot out from the Cosmic Nebula and made it spread out *EGG-SHAPED* .

Syed Vickar Ahamed: And more, He has extended the earth (far and wide also in the shape of an *EGG*)

Dr. Kamal Omar: And the earth, after this stage, He gave it an *OVAL FORM*.

Rashad Khalifa: He made the earth *EGG-SHAPED* .

So who is a liar here and by the way I don’t understand why agniveer thinks YOUSUF ALI’S TRANSLATION TO BE ULTIMATE.

earth is spining around its own axis/thus the equitorial region experience more centrifugal force and hence the equitorial region bulges out uniformly in all directions(thats common sense.)

okay now compare earth and egg shape.

from view: earth is elliptical and ostrich egg is also elliptical.

THIS IS THE OLY COMPARISION YOU SHOW.

now lets turn to the top view: earth is circular shape(with the semimajor axis in the front view as the radious. this is because since the earth is rotating the equitorial region experiences maximum centrifugal force and bilges out. thus this radius at the equator is seen at the top view). for egg shape, the top view is also ellipse.

now lets look at the side view: earth is also elliptical as in the front view(same as front view). egg shape, the side view is circle with the semi minor axis of the front view *ellipse) as the radius.

conclusion: thus the moment you say earth is egg shaped according to the quran you are actually proving the quran wrong brither. use your common sense before you speak.

thus only the front view of both the structures(egg shape and actual earth shaoe matches).but the top view and side view does not match at all.for earth top view is circle and for egg, it is ellipse.for earth side view is ellipse(front view itself) and for egg shape, it is circle. the specifications i have mentioned above. thus in this comparision only 33% match can we find. nearly 66% does not match.this is not a good approximation at all.thus if you interpret this verse of the noble quran in this way, you dig up a dangerous hole for you and the scientific claims of you rleligion. so, sorry brother.

earth is spining around its own axis/thus the equitorial region experience more centrifugal force and hence the equitorial region bulges out uniformly in all directions(thats common sense.)

okay now compare earth and egg shape.

from view: earth is elliptical and ostrich egg is also elliptical.

THIS IS THE OLY COMPARISION YOU SHOW.

now lets turn to the top view: earth is circular shape(with the semimajor axis in the front view as the radious. this is because since the earth is rotating the equitorial region experiences maximum centrifugal force and bilges out. thus this radius at the equator is seen at the top view). for egg shape, the top view is also ellipse.

now lets look at the side view: earth is also elliptical as in the front view(same as front view). egg shape, the side view is circle with the semi minor axis of the front view *ellipse) as the radius.

thus when you compare egg shape to earth it is utter ignorance of basic laws of physics. thus you screw yourself when you say that as per th quran, the earth is egg shaped. furthermore,please do know that this translation is coming from reinterpretation of the word dahaha by looking at the root word and going into it just to find a scientific meaning. if this transaltaion is also correct and also that of yusuf ali , that cannot be proved wrong, then it means that the quran is an open book to any kind of interpretation and it bases on the knowledge of the reader/translator. thus the quran cannot be taken as a clear book, wvwn though it claims to be.

brother jazib,come up with facts , come up next time. in this issue, i am reaady to debate(provided you have something called as common sense).

+Vajra —But even if it was the LATTER THAT THEY DONT FEEL PAIN still your argument doesn’t justify THAT YOU KILLED A LIVING ONE(a innocent who can’t do anything for saving himself).—

If I have to survive, I have to eat something. Only point is am I doing it with minimum pain to others.

Response : Correct you eat plant, we eat both animals and plants. Minimum pain??? Do you guy’s have any machine to measure so?? Plant’s pain cannot be heard so KILLED THEM BECOMES A BIGGER SINGLE ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC. That’s why every life is not sacred.

And yes if you will do anything that will inflict less pain and killing. STOP BRUSHING YOUR TRUTH as it kills millions of LIVING GERMS 😉 ATLEAST START WRITING AGAINST COMPANIES PROMOTING COLGATE and other thing.

As far5as we are consider we WONT DO SO for we know every life is not sacred.

Likewise stop taking bath like Aghoris. Do you when you walk, sit etc you kill millions of germs.

Anyway this absurd thing that we shouldn’t eat beef is Nonsense.

—By the way by your logic IF SOMEONE IS GIVEN ANASTHESIA and then killed. Will that be OK because HE DIDN’T FELT PAIN. No, so you argument is wrong.—

So much of research on killing, is it because of teaching of your holy book or something else? Plant is not human, so this fantasy of yours wont work. See above logic.

Response: Again unanswered. And plants are not humans but they Have LIFE LIKE HUMAN. Holy books just teach how to lead the way of life.

So by this all your arguments are answered.

Now my Questions 1. Archaeological evidences show that primitive man was a non vegetarian. So why didn’t God made it not happen. Does this not seem Deception on part of God to let this happen for 1000s of years and then say suddenly it’s wrong.

2. There are places in world where veg food is very rare and they eat animals therefore. Agniveer says we would transport. I request him to only pay transport charge and…

Vajra: —-Can you break ALL IDOLATORS IDOLS IN INDIA as our religion is against it.—-

1. Now you are exposed. Ultimately you are a Jihadi dog whose agenda is to break idols and kill idolaters just like ISIS and Boko.

Response: Calling me a DOG, maybe Hinduism teaches it but I will repeat the words of blessed Prophet on it MAY GOD SHOW YOU LIGHT AND THE WAY HOW TO TALK. Still my argument was to just show WE WILL NOT GO AGAINST our religion in the least and moreover Bible, Torah, Vedas also are against IDOL worshipping still we don’t care what you do.

2. Your religion also says man can marry 4 women and take as many sex slaves as he wants. That doesn’t mean I will allow Jihadi dogs to abduct your mothers, sisters etc. I will defend them as my own mother/sisters. But this level of humanity and respect for women won’t enter your piggy brain that is filled with sh*t. Keep dreaming.

Response: ISLAM is only religion that says MARRY ONLY ONE. Many Hindus claim Vedas says the same but when you ask for proof NOT EVEN A SINGLE VERSE CAN THEY QUOTE but will rather give a singular singular theory which can be refuted by singular plural and plural plural theory.

Qur’an 4:3 “And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you FEAR THAT YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO JUSTICE between then MARRY ONLY ONE

The only book that contains phrase MARRY ONLY ONE.

ONE MORE THING

QUR’AN 4:129 Ye will not be able to deal equally between your wives

PROPHET MARRING MULTIPLE WIVES IS A DIFFERENT TOPIC AND WONT BE DEALT HERE.

We don’t need you guys to defend anything. We have better system for them.

And it’s Hinduism which is a curse to woman’s as it promotes DOWRY SYSTEM

ISLAM PROMOTES MAHR SYSTEM whereby a man gives dowers to woman and this IS PRACTICED BY US NOT BY WORDS ONLY.

+Vajra You: —-If Cow is sacred to you. It is also in our religion to sacrifice it. So you can worship it and we will sacrifice it. Why will we go against our religion for you.—-

1. You have to go against your religion for us because we go against our religion in Muslim majority states for you. I am forced not to worship my idols and build my temples in Saudi and other Islamic countries. Your feelings get hurt there. My feelings get hurt here. So you have to stop it. Don’t give me the shit of India being secular country. Yes, we are a secular democracy and we banned beef democratically. So stop Rona Dhona about it.

Response: There is no Hindu in SAUDI or a non Muslim so how can there be a temple? 2. Lord said just tell them the truth. Otherwise whatever you worship we don’t care

Quran 36:17 *”And our duty is only to proclaim the clear Message.”*

Quran 29:18 *”And if you deny, then nations before you have denied (their Messengers). And the duty of the Messenger is only to convey (the Message) plainly.”*

Quran 16:82 *”But if they turn away, thy duty is only to preach the clear Message. “*

Qur’an 6:108 *Abuse not those to whom they pray, apart from God, or they will abuse God in revenge without knowledge*

+Vajra It seems you guys have done a degree in changing the topic. You didn’t answer that YOU STILL KILLED A LIVING BEING.

YOU: –but we’re showing your emotions–

Dont show someone else’s emotions. Its abnormal.

Response: it’s his article which was showing so not I. THEREFORE according to you Agniveers article=abnormal 🙁

You : –STILL YOU KILLED A LIVING ONE–

1. 018723459765243. Does this make my answer logical because I used maths? Similarly switching to upper case/bigger fonts doesn’t make your argument strong.

Response: See you are not answering THEY ALSO HAD LIFE. keep changing topic.

2. Its not about killing. Its about inflicting minimum pain on others for living.

Response: Is this a joke SO ACCORDING TO YOU A SINLESS LIFE is something impossible. By the way according to your theory tou guys will get punished for this SIN of inflicting less pain(which is still a pain and therefore sin) in next life and the problem is that this process BECOMES NEVER ENDING. So this foolishness that every life is sacred is a lie. Why would GOD create such a situation where we don’t have any choice but to sin.

+AGNIVEER This poor article doesn’t Justify BEEF BAN but we’re showing your emotions and nothing else. 1. Plant’s also have life so killing them is also a crime. Your argument on this point was: Plant’s don’t feel like for instance ” I AM A MANGO TREE” so we can kill them.

Refutation : This is a rubbish argument. You totally ignored STILL YOU KILLED A LIVING ONE. This point still is unanswered and which animal does feel LIKE I AM A DOG OR OTHER anyway? Even if it was to be agreed (which we don’t) that PLANTS HAVE LESS SENSES THAN ANIMALS, does it still justify your logic. Nope. Consider this: You have brother born BLIND AND DEAF (two senses less) who gets murdered by someone. Will you go to JUDGE and tell him to give him less punishment for your brother had less senses. No you won’t or I atleast expect from you to go to JUDGE and complain in Vedic style———My lord, REND REND TO BITS AND SCORCH AND CONSUME AND BURN HIM TO DUST FOR HE DOTH KILLED MY BROTHER, a INNOCENT BROTHER I MIGHT ADD. Your plant logic can be applied to a MENTALY RETARDED PERSON LIKEWISE.

2. You said THEY DONT FEEL PAIN REFUTATION: They do which is scientifically proven. But even if it was the LATTER THAT THEY DONT FEEL PAIN still your argument doesn’t justify THAT YOU KILLED A LIVING ONE(a innocent who can’t do anything for saving himself).

By the way by your logic IF SOMEONE IS GIVEN ANASTHESIA and then killed. Will that be OK because HE DIDN’T FELT PAIN. No, so you argument is wrong.

3. If Cow is sacred to you. It is also in our religion to sacrifice it. So you can worship it and we will sacrifice it. Why will we go against our religion for you. Can you break ALL IDOLATORS IDOLS IN INDIA as our religion is against it. So keep your argument.

So vegetarian = meat eater = cannibal. So you are a bloody man-eater. Buzz off.

–which animal does feel LIKE I AM A DOG–

Try pinching a dog. It will scream in pain. Try pinching a carrot. Normal humans dont hear any screams. You might have different experiences as different species hear sound waves in different frequencies.

–Even if it was to be agreed (which we don’t) that plants are blind and deaf brothers–

1. Agree with whom? Did Agniveer ever say that plants are your blind and deaf brothers? If no, why agree to it unnecessarily?

2. When you cant defend what you believe, start defending something else you dont believe. Is this the plan?

–PLANTS HAVE LESS SENSES THAN ANIMALS, You have brother born BLIND AND DEAF (two senses less) who gets murdered by someone. Will you go to JUDGE and tell him to give him less punishment for your brother had less senses–

1. So, in your theory, if

plants = blind and deaf brothers then

animals = normal brothers

So your logic is, I will kill my normal brothers because I eat my blind and deaf brothers. And I will fight like a rabid dog with someone who doesn’t believe in this analogy of animals being my normal brothers. I wonder if this is the reason why ISIS, Boko Haram etc compete…

I wonder if this is the reason why ISIS, Boko Haram etc compete with animals!

—I atleast expect from you to go to JUDGE and complain in Vedic style———My lord, REND REND TO BITS AND SCORCH AND CONSUME AND BURN HIM TO DUST FOR HE DOTH KILLED MY BROTHER, a INNOCENT BROTHER I MIGHT ADD—

Good, so you know that Vedas ask us to punish demons who kill brothers, sisters and dear ones unlike books from some prophets that ask followers to kill and rape infidels just because they are non-believers.

—Your plant logic can be applied to a MENTALY RETARDED PERSON LIKEWISE—

No, it cant be because plant doesn’t have internet access and a keyboard. But a retard can go to someone else’s website to show I am retard despite clear disclaimer.

—You said THEY DONT FEEL PAIN—

Where has Agniveer said it?

—REFUTATION: They do which is scientifically proven—

1. In which lab? Cite one scientific study that says plants DO FEEL pain. Dont show ‘may’ or ‘might’.

2. Animals feel pain, just like humans, ITS SCIENCE. Equating plants with animals in terms of pain is the act of fools.

—But even if it was the LATTER THAT THEY DONT FEEL PAIN still your argument doesn’t justify THAT YOU KILLED A LIVING ONE(a innocent who can’t do anything for saving himself).—

If I have to survive, I have to eat something. Only point is am I doing it with minimum pain to others.

—By the way by your logic IF SOMEONE IS GIVEN ANASTHESIA and then killed. Will that be OK because HE DIDN’T FELT PAIN. No, so you argument is wrong.—

So much of research on killing, is it because of teaching of your holy book or something else? Plant is not human, so this fantasy of yours wont work. See above logic.

—-If Cow is sacred to you. It is also in our religion to sacrifice it. So you can worship it and we will sacrifice it. Why will we go against our religion for you.—-

1. You have to go against your religion for us because we go against our religion in Muslim majority states for you. I am forced not to worship my idols and build my temples in Saudi and other Islamic countries. Your feelings get hurt there. My feelings get hurt here. So you have to stop it. Don’t give me the shit of India being secular country. Yes, we are a secular democracy and we banned beef democratically. So stop Rona Dhona about it.

—-Can you break ALL IDOLATORS IDOLS IN INDIA as our religion is against it.—-

1. Now you are exposed. Ultimately you are a Jihadi dog whose agenda is to break idols and kill idolaters just like ISIS and Boko.

2. Your religion also says man can marry 4 women and take as many sex slaves as he wants. That doesn’t mean I will allow Jihadi dogs to abduct your mothers, sisters etc. I will defend them as my own mother/sisters. But this level of humanity and respect for women won’t enter your piggy brain that is filled with sh*t. Keep dreaming.

3. This is India, not Saudi. India will be run by its humanitarian laws based on universal humanism and glorious culture of this land based on non-violence and respect for women. Any Jihadi dreaming of making it the part of Islamic State will be chopped into pieces. This land will protect women, children, humans, idols, temples, churches, culture, cow and everything that needs to be. Terrorist Jihadis will be ripped apart and iconoclasts will be dispatched to Jannat ul Firdous.

– Ban on defacing and damaging heritage and protected buildings. Why certain buildings be considered so special after all? Why “freedom-lovers” do not have freedom to choose what buildings they decide to consider special?

Because those buildings aren’t your property, so you have no right to damage them. Cows, on the other hand, can be your property, or you can buy the meat in a store.

– Ban on insulting and desecration of national symbols like flag.

I am strongly against any ban on flag desecration or insulting other national symbols. Thank you for bringing this up. If I own a flag, it is my flag to do whatever I want with it.

– Ban on sale and carrying of unlicensed arms and weapon.

Because those weapons present an often immediate danger to the public. They can easily be used to kill or severely harm other people. Cattle slaughter, on the other hand, presents little danger to human health, as does beef consumption.

– Ban on roaming naked and having sex in public.

Being naked and public sexual activity exposes private functions that are not designed for public. Same thing with outdoor defecation and urination. This is not comparable with beef eating.

– Ban on mutual cannibalism with consent.

“Mutual” cannabalism? Does that mean two people are eating the bodies of each other, while both being dead? If, however, this means someone consented to be killed and eaten by another person, obviously this needs to banned. Are you seriously comparing human killing to cattle slaughter?

– Ban on sale and consumption of narcotics.

Narcotics only damage human health. Also, a lack of a ban on narcotics makes it easier for them to be forced on others, especially children, which severely damages public health.

Cattle slaughter thus does not damage human health. Also, a ban on cattle slaughter upsets the separation of church from state. The Indian government is secular and not theocratic. We cannot make laws…

—-Because those buildings aren’t your property, so you have no right to damage them. Cows, on the other hand, can be your property, or you can buy the meat in a store.—

1. This is the point. Some buildings CAN’T be the personal property of anyone, they are treated as national heritage. Same with cow. You can have her and avail mutual benefits but you can’t kill her.

2. Even your neighbor’s wall and city-streets are not you property. But if you spit on them, nobody cares (it should change though). But try doing it with any heritage place and you will be behind bars within minutes. So its above the property rights. Its about the sentiments of people.

—-I am strongly against any ban on flag desecration or insulting other national symbols. Thank you for bringing this up. If I own a flag, it is my flag to do whatever I want with it.—-

And you are a criminal if you do that. I can’t even argue this with you. And if a goon like you tries to insult national symbols, I will make sure he gets proper treatment in jail and insults outside.

—Because unlicensed weapons present an often immediate danger to the public. They can easily be used to kill or severely harm other people—

1. And licensed weapons don’t pose immediate threat to public? If the extent of damage a weapon can pose to public is the point, both licensed and unlicensed are equal threats.

2. Difference lies in LAW. Some people are granted permission to use them as per LAW given their situations, needs and history. Same is the case with cow. LAW has banned beef based on arguments, history and sentiments of people. Don’t cry.

—Being naked and public sexual activity exposes private functions that are not designed for public. Same thing with outdoor defecation and urination. This is not comparable with beef eating—

1. Who are you to decide what is private function and what is public? Who designed it for private? #KissOfLove Chumban brigade says they will do it in public. What would you say to them?

2. Sex is designed for private but blood and flesh of innocents that nature has kept inside to remain inside must be spilled out, torn apart and eaten in name of freedom. This is perfectly natural thing?

—-Mutual” cannabalism? Does that mean two people are eating the bodies of each other, while both being dead?—

No both can be alive and eat parts of each other. One can be dead who has left a will that his dead be offered to his friend. Whats big deal?

—If, however, this means someone consented to be killed and eaten by another person, obviously this needs to banned.—

Why should it be banned? Two adults want to exercise freedom. Who are you ban it, fascist?

— Are you seriously comparing human killing to cattle slaughter?—

Yes, because similar mindset that wants to eat everything in name of freedom will demand cannibalism one day. In fact some tribals in Amazon do it.

—Narcotics only damage human health—

1. And so does beef. Its one of most polluting industries in world.

2. Alcohol, cigarette, Tobacco etc all damage health. So they should be banned too or not?

3. If freedom works for beef, Alcohol, Tobacco etc, why the hell its not for Narcotics?

—Cattle slaughter thus does not damage human health—

Cattle slaughter damages animals. They are killed. It damages everything. So humanity needs to try for less violence. After cattle, other innocents must be talked about. Violence against harmless creatures must be a punishable offence. This is true liberalism.

Again, a profoundly stupid article. Just because the majority of a country does not agree with a practice doesn’t mean it can be banned. The majority of India is not communist and may oppose communism. If I have a sign on my lawn saying “I support the Communist Party of India,” should that sign be banned because it may hurt the majority’s sentiments? NO! Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are fundamental freedoms and should not be treaded upon unless it directly does or promotes violence towards human beings.

—-Just because the majority of a country does not agree with a practice doesn’t mean it can be banned.—-

1. And ban can’t be revoked just because someone feels that he is above courts and rule of law.

2. Know that beef ban has occurred not because of majority. People had some feelings and they fought it in the court. Court found their arguments valid and put ban.

3. A political party included cattle-protection in its manifesto. People voted for the party. Now they are implementing it. This is democracy. I dont care if you want to be the dictator of the country. Reality is you are not and you never will be.

—-Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are fundamental freedoms and should not be treaded upon unless it directly does or promotes violence towards human beings.—-

So who stopped you from voicing your opinion against ban on streets? Go to Jantar Mantar, do it. And how is beef ban related to religious freedom? Is someone stopping you from going to temple or mosque?

What darn skewed logic is being promoted by this article. It’s also scary to see that so many agree with it, though not surprising.

All the feelings you have poured in the article is because you were born in a Hindu family, as do all (I guess) who support this article. I was also born in Hindu family and I am equally ashamed by it as I would be if I was born in any other religion. Humans have a tendency of feeling like they BELONG to a GROUP and everything outside the group looks bad. These feelings are quite primitive. Humanity has developed way beyond those primitive ways that it’s time we think logically and independent of any indoctrination that religion puts us through.

If you want to be spiritual, be in your home, think of God in your way and stay happy. Anybody who fights a religion-based battle in the streets on in a social platform like the net is a danger to humanity. The more such people are there, the more outside their group will feel insecure. One good thing about Hinduism is that it gives more freedom to think independently than many other religions. However, some just don’t use this freedom for the good of humanity.

Are there no animal lovers in the world apart from Hindus?

Are there no environment protectors in the world apart from Hindus?

Are there no animals eaten for their meat other than cows? (Milch animals include goats.)

Who made cow you ‘mother’? Just the religion? What if you were born in any other religion?

Any religion that teaches you to be intolerant of OUTSIDERS is misinterpreted over hundreds of years. This includes the definition of KAFIR in Islam as interpreted incorrectly by many now. The only acceptable definition of OUTSIDERS can be “uncivilized”, which most of the world was when religion and civilizations were born. Now we are all (mostly) civilized.

Banning anything that is accepted by majority of the world is what is wrong with this. That shows a ME thinking instead of US. Nakal ki jagah akal…

I am an Hindu and I eat non-veg. I love food so for me it doesn’t really matter what I eat as long as I want. You say in this article about BEEF, but what about other animals and plants. Do you by any chance know that plants has life just like us. Plants have sense just like us. You are a bigger murder because you are killing someone who can’t even express. That is brutality. You can get all facts and figures of the life but I will tell you this that because of people like you who bring differences the world is no longer a better place. Because of people like you religion came in the world, then partitions, then differences and more differences. Why can’t people just live happy and let live happy. If you are so very proud of being an Indian then STOP using all the things which are not indian. Use all products, technology, etc which are truly Indian.

Sorry to say but all the things what you figured out is just because you can’t take shit.

Over all eating plants is a better way than eating animals as it causes less harm to the planet and definitely less cruel. I will give some arguments in support of my view.

Plants—unlike animals—are insentient beings void of central nervous systems, lungs, hearts, kidneys, intestines, blood, ears and eyes. They do not defecate or urinate, and have no ability to feel pain or experience a plethora of emotions. Nobody screams in horror when their neighbors are mowing the grass either (grass is a plant too). But if our neighbors were slicing pigs into pieces on the front lawn, there would be tears, physical interventions and the proper authorities would be summoned to stop the bloodshed. Plus, if people honestly believe it’s wrong to eat plants, they could always choose the ultra-vegan lifestyle of fruitarianism (eating the fruits and nuts that fall from

There’s a Law of Reciprocity in existence and this is shown via the seed that all fruits of plants (including trees) contain! What is removed is replaced in Nature. When you kill an animal, LIGHTS OUT! That’s it! Animals don’t contain seeds within them that allow for 100 more creatures to return in their stead.

Finally found someone to ask this questionIs killing cattle for beef a greater pollutant than sustaining them for milk and other purposes?

“Suppose I raise 100 cows for milk ….call this group A……and suppose I raise another 100 cows for meat….call this group B”

From the article it seems to me that both A and B are equally harmful…..because pollution comes from raising the cattle……not during the actual killing and meat production part

In fact if u consider the fact the animals in group B are kept alive for years…..their numbers will increase (whereas the number in group A will actually decline)B would cause morepollution…….Now even if the number of cattle in group B remains the same….the live for years…..so number of cow-years (ie total number of cows X Number of years) forgroup B will still be far far greater than with group A…..more the cow-years more will be the pollution !!!

PS: You ca ignore the long term implications and answer the first qn , which is more simple…..which among group A and B would be causing more pollution…or do their pollution efffects same? And is the pollution related to “raising” the cattle or in killing them for meat?

From a medical viewpoint statements 1 and 2 are wrong (references given in my previous reply….but of course u wouldn’t consider them as authentic…..u think the ultimate TB in medicine is wrong….tthats OK)

As an explanation(to others): only microorganisms produce Vit B12 …….these are found in gut of rumianats and are absorbed and is found in the meat…..Human beings are not so lucky ….their intenstinal microbes do not produce Vit B12)

Point no:3 is partly correct……partly because one needs to consume about 600 ml of milk or equivalent amounts of milk products to getsufficient daily doses of Vit B12…….not everyone consumes this much amountof milk everyday !!!

One another thing………most microbes that reachour stomach dies because of the high acidic content….otherwise wewould become patients all the time…..and again microbes are not the most imp source for Vit B12 in vegetarians…….its mostlyy milk and diary products PLUS a minor contribution from microbes eaten

@ Veda……I understand your info is based on the Hindi website…….but I have given u references from UPTODATE and Harrison’s TB of medicine…….are u really going to tell me that UPTODATE and Harrison TB got it wrong?

)You either get vit B12 from milk (which will require atleast 600 ml of milk or equivalent milk products) OR

2)You get Vit B12 from insects and microbes u consume unknowingly…..its not a myth…..just do a genuine research……..people don’t want u to know this truth, hence they are not giving it widespread coverage…..thats all….seearch and u will know it is the truth

And in any case unless u consume more than 600 ml of milk or milk product equivalents…….there is no way u can remain Vit B12 sufficient without eating all those insects and microbes…….!!!

PS: I am not putting in this Vit B12 ideas to prove that vegetarianism is bad…….all I say is that “I believe (Its “I” not “u” or anybody else) we are meant to be omnivores for this very fact…….and even if we arenot meant to be, I don’t see a point in being vegetrian”

So quit arguing to me about which is good (veg/non veg)……i don’t care

If u have any questions about this vit B12 thing ….ask….I will reply

As for the microbes and insects which I said u consue unintentonally……..do a genuine search in scientific books and u will know the truth……If u don’t want to be confronted with that truth…..beleive whatever u wanna believe…..I don’t care….I brought up this insect thing only because of the issue somehow came up regarding vit B2 deficiency…..otherwise i have never until now engaged in a veg /nonveg debate……and never ever have dissappointed even one single vegetarian so far with this insect knwoldege !!!!

Answer: Merely by saying your arguments to be non-debatable, they don’t become non-debatable. The information given by me (under “Veda”) is sufficient to prove that you don’t need to be CONSCIOUSLY non-vegetarian (as you yourself are) for becoming rich in vitamin “B12”. It is pointless to try to prove the normal food eaten by vegetarians to be non-vegetarian just for the sake defending your non-vegetarian intake. Even a child can understand what is vegetarian and what is non-vegetarian. When the non-vegetarians become bereft of any other arguments, they put forward their foolish argument that the vegetarian foods are also so-called non-vegetarian. I have just proved above (under the name “Veda”) that vegetarians do NOT have any “B12”-problem (so-called vitamin problem).

@ Veda…..on second thoughts…..just one more reply so that some sane people can understand and that they don’t remain confused

First here is a statement from : The Vegetarian Research Group

“Plant foods do not contain vitamin B12 except when they are contaminated by microorganisms or have vitamin B12 added to them”

I could give even more scientific material in this regard…..medical book quotes, UPTODATE articles …….

I have not read your Hindi posts and have not referred to your link because there is “level of evidence” criteria……..the website u quoted is not anywhere nearly as authentic as scientific journals and medical textbooks

Further I didn’t quote those points to win an argument……or to support non veg diet (reasons explained earlier)…….I only say this:

1)You need to consume atleast 00 ml of milk or equivlent amount of diary products per day to meet RDA of Vit B12……..

Or

2)Your plant diet must be either fortified or “contaminated” with microorganisms

Or Both 1 & 2

Now I didn’t say anybody is consciously eating insects………you seem to imply that I did……..But I did not…….The face is we all do inconsciously consume non veg !!!!

You are right about the long storage of vit B12 ……but thats not relevant here….is it????

And our body do not produce Vit B12……I don’t care if some website says that……..because just because someone opened a website or a blog doesn’t make them authentic………I don’t know whether the website says that we produce vit B2 (because i didn’t read it……..but if they did say that……they are wrong……..I could say that on the weight of science taught to me)

Answer: The above reply from jyotish vijay was enough and there was no need of any further reply from jyotish vijay. But still jyotish vijay gave unnecessary further reply.

This we deal with below.

2. Jyothish vijay says: At Veda…..on second thoughts…..just one more reply so that some sane people can understand and that they don’t remain confused

Answer: Here, jyotish vijay seems to mean that we are not sane people. But actually, as we will see below, jyotish vijay himself is not sane. Moreover, he is saying “don’t remain confused”. But actually, jyotish vijay’s intention is itself to confuse on the name of removing the confusion.

3. Jyothish vijay says: First here is a statement from The Vegetarian Research Group, “Plant foods do not contain vitamin B12 except when they are contaminated by microorganisms or have vitamin B12 added to them”

Answer: The Hindi link given by us, which jyotish vijay conveniently avoided to read, is ALSO from the Vegetarian Group, and this link (Hindi above) has already said as follows: “The non-veg diet is NOT necessary to be done for getting the vitamin “B12”. The VEGETARIANS create sufficient amount of vitamin “B12” in their bodies. But suppose, even if B12 was not found in the plants and was created only in the bodies of the animals, then even in that case, there wasn’t any need to worry about it, because, then, it would have been created automatically in our bodies as per the necessity. And actually this is a fact also. The only difference is that it isn’t a product of meat, but is created by minute organisms…and similar to other animals, Vitamin “B12” is also created in our own bodies in certain parts of the digestive system with the help of the same above-mentioned organisms.

4. Jyothish vijay says: I could give even more scientific material in this regard…..medical book quotes, UPTODATE articles …….

Answer: All such so-called scientific material is not required, because when the aim of the scientific research is to PROVE that non-veg is necessary to be eaten by human beings, then they can NEVER come to the proper conclusion. Moreover, there is so much fraud, nowadays, in the science and research.

5. Jyothish vijay says: I have not read your Hindi posts and have not referred to your link because there is “level of evidence” criteria……..the website u quoted is not anywhere nearly as authentic as scientific journals and medical textbooks.

Answer: What is that your so-called criteria? What do you mean by authentic? I already stated above that there is so much cheating going on in the research institutes. There are books available on the frauds that take place in the fields of research, and these research experts can even reverse the conclusions which come naturally. The materialistic researchers always successfully hide the truth because their rackets are the groups of the cheaters and the cheated. They can always suppress the truth by means of frauds and extortions. So quoting from such fraud research groups is not required here.

Jyothish vijay says: Further I didn’t quote those points to win an argument……or to support non veg diet (reasons explained earlier)…….I only say this: 1)You need to consume atleast 00 ml of milk or equivlent amount of diary products per day to meet RDA of Vit B12……..Or 2)Your plant diet must be either fortified or “contaminated” with microorganisms. Or Both 1 & 2.

Answer: This is the favorite argument of the non-veg people. The only way for them to support their non-vegetarian habits is to equate the veg and non-veg and to say that the “veg” is also “non-veg”. It may be true that, the vegetarian people might inadvertently consume some insects or micro-organisms which might be seen as “non-veg” by the “non-veg” people, but still, it is different from cutting the throat of animals, which are noticeably living, and eating their flesh or eating fish etc. In the veg-food, the insects can very easily be detected and they can be removed from the veg-food. AS FAR AS, MICRO-ORGANISMS ARE CONCERNED it is ridiculous to state that MICRO-ORGANISMS are NON-VEG because they are NOT killed. I mean to say, even after they enter the human body, THEY REMAIN ALIVE and they do their job creating vitamins for the human body. On the other hand, when non-vegetarians eat “chicken”, “fish”, “meat” or “beef”, the chicken is already killed, the fish is already killed, the ship, cow, bull, buffalo etc are already killed before their “meat” is prepared. In other words, it is not possible to create the “flesh” without first killing them. This is the difference between the MICRO-ORGANISMS which you are talking about (in veg-food) and the non-veg food. Got it?

The micro-organisms are NEVER KILLED. I mean to say, even upon entering the body, they remain ALIVE. Not only do they remain alive, but they also do their job properly. They are not killed. Hence, they are NOT non-veg. They are VEG. I mean to say, deciding whether something is NON-VEG or VEG is not done simply by seeing the content of the food, but it is decided by seeing how much KILLING has been taken place for preparing that food.

The another point is that, the non-vegetarian people, in order to prove their point, take shelter of science and research, and then they want to “scientifically” prove that non-veg diet is essential for health, because their attempt to logically proving it failed and hence now they take shelter of science. One such attempt of the non-vegetarian people is the vitamin “B12” argument. This vitamin “B12” argument must, therefore, always be seen as a secondary argument, and not as any primarily important argument of non-vegetarianism. But, even then, even this “B12” argument is completely smashed by the Hindi website, which I quoted above. But this website has not been read by you, because it is inconvenient for you to read it since it destroys your weak arguments. But you are saying that you didn’t read it for the reasons of scientific authenticity. But, this is another attempt of yours to escape from the truth.

If you were honest enough, then you could have actually FIRST read the argument on the Hindi website, and then defeated it. But you have not done that. You have simply rejected it WITHOUT reading. This is because, you were afraid to read it. I mean to say, you had the fear in your mind that it would actually prove vegetarianism. That’s why you didn’t read it.

And this especially becomes very noticeable, when while quoting the Hindi website, I had actually TRANSLATED it into English too.

7. Jyothish vijay says: Now I didn’t say anybody is consciously eating insects………you seem to imply that I did……..But I did not…….The face is we all do inconsciously consume non veg !!!!

Answer: It is not important whether you consciously eat insects or do not consciously eat insects. It is impossible that I will ever comment about any particular person’s eating habits in the general discussion of the current type. Let us not get diverted into who meant what or imply what. You have made a blanket statement: “The face is we all do inconsciously consume non veg”. This statement is of fraud nature because just in the previous paragraph I have proved it to be false. The people who don’t eat non-veg consciously do not eat non-veg even unconsciously. This is because they can always minimize the potentially non-veg elements from their diets or even make it zero. But even if, by mistake, they may consume non-veg (without their knowledge), as soon as they are informed about it, they will avoid eating it. This is the difference between the “veg” and “non-veg” people. [Here, I am not talking about people who are not careful about their eating habits and who are simply vegetarians out of “chance”. No. I am not talking about them. I am talking about the vegetarians, who are “consciously” vegetarians.] The difference between the (strict) vegetarians and non-vegetarians is that the vegetarians will always want to minimize the non-vegetarian elements (if any) from their diet, and the non-vegetarians will not.

8. Jyothish vijay says: You are right about the long storage of vit B12 ……but thats not relevant here….is it????

Answer: Simply quoting something from my comment “out of the context” without quoting it fully (especially when the argument is scientific argument) shows another cheating propensity or simply the speediness in wanting to prove without proper study.

9. Jyothish vijay says: And our body do not produce Vit B12……I don’t care if some website says that……..because just because someone opened a website or a blog doesn’t make them authentic………

Answer: The same thing can be said about your comments: just because someone commented that our bodies do not produce “B12”, the commentator does not become authentic. The commentator may say anything he wants, but we can say, on the strength of the Hindi website, that the vitamin “B12” argument given by the cheater type non-vegetarians is a fake argument. This is the truth. I don’t care if some commentator (jyotish vijay) keeps on holding the old faulty argument. Because, simply by commenting, one does not become authentic.

10. Jyothish vijay says: I don’t know whether the website says that we produce vit B2 (because i didn’t read it……..but if they did say that……they are wrong……..I could say that on the weight of science taught to me)

Answer: If you didn’t read it, then how can you say it is wrong? First read it. I have read all your arguments and also proved them to be wrong. But you have not even read all our arguments. But simply on the basis of the “science taught to you”, you are claiming that you are right. But we are saying on the “science taught to us” that your claim is wrong. We don’t care what “science taught to you” says. It is sufficient for us to know that the vegetarians can remain completely healthy without any need of non-vegetarian diet, and that the “B12” argument given by non-vegetarians is faulty.

1)I said people take non veg unconsciously…….there are articleson the net to support this……..and u may have articles on the net to counter it……..So which one to believe? (I wil come to that in the end)

2)I said humans don’t produce vit B12……you say your website says so……I can provide scientific references that deny it….So which to believe? (As said earlier I will come to that)

3)Human being on veg diet get Vit B12 only from milk or diary products products……..or from contaminants…..do u wish to say that this statement of mine is wrong?

What constitutes believable document then? Ans: In my view medical textbooks, medical journals and UPTODATE (its a medical software)….I can give evidence from that to support my statements

The problem is u don’t consider them asauthentic……u consider your website is authentic….fine I can’t argue to that……..Sane people also will read these…….let each one make up their own mind as to which they consider as authentic

Of course I can’t force u to consider my references as authentic……just like u can’t force me either……..Even so……..u can’t counter me…….and I can’t counter u ……because first we need to agree on some reference standards……….since we cannot…….I have nothing more to say than this:

“Cobalamin(Vit B12) is synthesized solely by microorganisms. Ruminants obtain cobalamin from the foregut, but the only source for humans is food of animal origin”

Prejudiced minds might still believe your Hindi website, but if a person has open mind and considers modern science and medicine as authentic enough (which almost any person does)……they will believe it !!!!

1)I said people take non veg unconsciously…….there are articleson the net to support this……..and u may have articles on the net to counter it……..So which one to believe? (I wil come to that in the end)

2)I said humans don’t produce vit B12……you say your website says so……I can provide scientific references that deny it….So which to believe? (As said earlier I will come to that)

3)Human being on veg diet get Vit B12 only from milk or diary products products……..or from contaminants…..do u wish to say that this statement of mine is wrong?

What constitutes believable document then? Ans: In my view medical textbooks, medical journals and UPTODATE (its a medical software)….I can give evidence from that to support my statements

The problem is u don’t consider them asauthentic……u consider your website is authentic….fine I can’t argue to that……..Sane people also will read these…….let each one make up their own mind as to which they consider as authentic

Of course I can’t force u to consider my references as authentic……just like u can’t force me either……..Even so……..u can’t counter me…….and I can’t counter u ……because first we need to agree on some reference standards……….since we cannot…….I have nothing more to say than this:

“Cobalamin(Vit B12) is synthesized solely by microorganisms. Ruminants obtain cobalamin from the foregut, but the only source for humans is food of animal origin. ”

Prejudiced minds might still believe your Hindi website, but if a person has open mind and considers modern science and medicine as authentic enough (which almost any person does)……they will believe it !!

(1) The Vitamin-B-group is found abundantly in the vegetarian diet beyond doubt. The only part of Vitabmin-B-group known as “B12” is controversial. Many non-veg people are again and again saying that “B12” is not found in the plants.

(2) If B12 was not found in the plants and was created only in the bodies of the animals, then there wasn’t any need to worry about it, because, then, it would have been created automatically in our bodies as per the necessity. And actually this is a fact also. The only difference is that it isn’t a product of meat, but is created by minute organisms such as Streptomyces griseus, Propionibacterium shermanii, Pseudomonas denitrificans.

(3) Similar to other animals, Vitamin “B12” is also created in our own bodies in certain parts of the digestive system with the help of the same above-mentioned organisms.

(4) Even in the animal-meats, the parts of the animal-bodies in which this vitamin “B12” is found are considered as non-eatable by the non-veg people.

(5) The non-veg diet is NOT necessary to be done for getting the vitamin “B12”.

(6) The VEGETARIANS create sufficient amount of vitamin “B12” in their bodies.

(7) It is true that whether the plants are or aren’t the important sources of “B12” has not been researched so much. The most of the researches about nutrition have been made in the WESTERN COUNTRIES where the meat is consumed normally, and therefore, there wasn’t any need felt there for any alternative research. But it is completely WRONG to say that the plant sources completely lack vitamin “B12”.

(8) In recent times, the VEGETARIANISM has been predominant in the western countries, and therefore there is an INCREASE in the researches for sources of vitamin “B12”.

(9) COW-DUNG: There are PROOFS available which show that vitamin “B12” is found ABUNDANTLY in the soils nurtured by…

(10) The vitamin “B12” is also found in the milk products of the Indian (“Deshi”) COWS, such as yogurt, paneer, buttermilk etc.

(11) Like other bodies, the human body PRESERVES vitamin “B12” for a LONG time and USES it repeatedly without losing its essence.

(12) There are clinical proofs that our body can preserve vitamin “B12” for 30 years even without any fresh intake. The reason for this is that, unlike other vitamins, vitamin “B12” is STORED in the LIVER (similar to other animals) but it is not created there.

Thanks Jyotish Vijay for not trying to convince me to become non-vegan. And anyone would try , he/she will fail because my conscience ( vivek buddhi) does not allow me to consume animals and creatures. Suppose I try to consume those things, my family members and relatives will abandon me. So thanks again.

Jyotish Vijay //Its impossible for a person who consumes non veg to develop Vit B12 defiency unless they have some other disease that causes defect in absorption or utilization of vitamin B12 like pernicious anemia, drug intake, IBD etc……..So most likely your friend must have had primarily a Folate defieicny which lead to Vit B12 defieincy// In your opinion Non-vegans can’t develop or suffer from any disease because they get all nutrients through their nonveg diet. Why my non vegan friend is suffering from the disease mentioned by you ? As per your logic she should be perfectly fit and healthy. //see, I don’t want to argue too much here// I too, don’t like to argue with anyone. //And No….I don’t believe in this negative energy u call TAMASIK,,,,,neither do i think its a hinderance to my spiritual progress// For your there is no difference between Satwik and Tamasik food and thinking. But for me and Agniveer, Non veg.is Tamasik and against the teachings of Vedic Rishis.

“Why did your relative develop deficiency?” Ans: First of all……you did not read my replies carefully………I said human beings are omnivores…..ie veg and nonveg both !…..Even when someone says he is a non veg, they actual mean mixed diet ie veg and non veg both !!!

As I told earlier …..in the case of your relative…..the following are possible:

1)The diagnosis is wrong……she may not have vit B 12 deficienecy at all……the doctor may be wrong……or maybe your relatives got the wrong idea from the doctor……Vit B12 assay is an investigation costing somewhere like rs.1000 to rs.2000…..its rarely done in reality !!!

2)if its indeed Vit B12 deficiency…….it may be the result of already having a folate deficiency……..So maybe your relative first deceloped folate deficiency and this lead to Vit B12 deficinecy EVENTHOUGH THE DIET PER SE WAS NOT DEFICIENT in Vit B12…….As mentioned earlier, absortion of Vit B12 is dependent on folic acid

Or else Vit B12 may be due to a physical diseases or a result of drug intake (NOW PLZ DON”T ASK ME AGAIN AND AGAIN)

I wanted to point out that even though I agree with you, we need to be careful with the whole meat eating thing. Scientists recently found out that goats have a worm in them that causes a change in brain chemistry that can cause increases state of aggression. And guess what area in the world eats the most goats, that is right the middle east. Guess that explains a lot. And we aren’t even getting into the other major diseases one can get from Goat. Like worms and etc.

Also one of the key reasons of getting a parasite from goats is they eat their own feces. It is actually a similar problem we see with pigs. So the main thing we need to do when it comes to goats is keep their pen area clean. In the US they don’t eat much goat, but they do eat pigs. And since this is a known problem with pigs, the American pig is one of the cleanest raised animals in the world. More people get sick and diseases from eating beef or lamb or chicken or fish than eating pork in the US. It is that clean.

Also found this interesting tid bit. This is from a positive article on goat meat. But they talk about environmental foot print:

“There are currently no statistics on the negative effects of goat meat production, however we do know that lamb production has by far the worst impact on our environment of any food, almost doubling beef and tripling pork CO2 emissions. Lambs yield a small amount of meat compared to the amount of waste they produce. Unfortunately, a goat’s meat/waste ratio is even worse.”

Hi Jyotish Actually you were right. She is suffering from mild Anaemia. Hence she is having problem in absorption of Vit B12. She is omnivore like you. Please tell me why an omnivore is suffering from deficiency of Iron/ Anaemia if she gets all nutrients from her mixed diet ? Doctors always claim that vegetarians like me are victims of Anaemia. But I am healthy and fit. I don’t need non-veg to increase Iron level and Hb in blood. Expecting your answer……

Jyotish Your logic is pointless and not my query to you. It seems to me that you did not understand my query. I didn’t mean that she is suffering from deficiency of iron because she is omnivore. I refuted your claim that only an omnivore is healthy and fit because he/she gets all nutrients from veg + nonveg food. You said vegetarians are alive because they consume microbes and insects unknowingly. What do you mean by vegetarians consume insects ? I’m not insane to consume insect. It’s you non-vegans who consume insects and all those disgusting and horrible creatures knowingly. Thank God I’m vegetarian.

“Eventually, after repeated attempts to modernize India’s approach to farming—and in particular its attitude toward its beloved zebus—it became clear that these technological upgrades were not very well thought out. They were not to replace a system that had endured for thousands of years; a system not only economically wise, but one that was part of a spiritually rich heritage. On the contrary, it may well be time to export the spiritual heritage of India to the West, where technology continues to threaten the tangible progress of humanity in its search for the deeper meaning of life.”

Me too do not kill any other animal or human beings……for pleasure…….even the nonveg I have consumed is not for “pleasure”……its to eat

Why wouldn’t I kill another huan being or animal? Ans: I have already posted it……my moto is do minimal harm…….and for me the threshold is such that I don’t kill another human being or creature

if the question is why that threshold? My ans: Its not a threshold kept after any deep thinking process……..and now that I think about it……i don’t find any reasoning strong enough to change my food habbit !!! (Human beings were nonveg at first and then came vegetarianism……..and I find all current talk on vegetarianism as people pushing in their own ideas……..I object to cow slaughter because its a very useful animal even from myperspective…….I understand Agniveer’s stand on a general beef ban; eventhough personally i don’t want that……..but that doesn’t mean I support a complete veg diet ie no egg, no fish, no poultry)

And yes….my opinion is still that our body is made to consume non veg as well…….many nutrients especially Vit B12 (exclusively non veg) and PUFA and Omege 3 FA are found mostly only in animal sources……..animal fats are better energy surce than plants(eg the Mediterranian diet)……..while all these health facts have been posted here only as an attempt to justify my nonveg diet, (and its not like “because of such nutritive values that i eat non veg”), the fact remains that these diet facts have made me to think that we are indeed omnivores like what our science texts tells us !!!

And for your information……the diet facts quoted above are not taken from the internet for arguing……I am in this field…..and I know stuff like this !!!

One more things…….all you vegetarians are remaining healthy only because of the microbes and insects you consume unkowingly during your lifetime…….As I told plants cannot sustain life in humans by…

I guess you are from South India. Did you understand my points in Hindi thoroughly ? 1. Our ancestors were not Homosapiens or Neanderthals ( barbaric non-vegans). They were Satwik( hardcore vegetarians) Aryas in Sat Yug. The human being in Kali yug enjoy meat. 2.The person who meditates daily and takes food according to Ayurveda does not need vitamins and minerals from external sources. e. g. My own family members like parents, my younger brother and I. We haven’t suffered from defficiency of any of Vitamins and minerals. We don’t need non-veg. supplements.

//But I believe you do not become vitamin defincent only because of the non veg u have consumed albeit unknowingly !!!// So your logic is that non-vegans don’t suffer from vitamin deficiency. I can prove you wrong by giving many examples. For an instance, let me tell you there is my friend who is non-vegan. She is suffering from deficiency of Vit B12 and Folic Acid. She has to take medicines daily. She is hardcore non-vegan and consume all kinds of non-vegan food including eggs.

//Me too do not kill any other animal or human beings……for pleasure…….even the nonveg I have consumed is not for “pleasure”……its to eat// I have given my own example. I am vegetarian and healthy. Even Agniveer is hard-core vegetarian too. When you know the fact that vegan diet can keep you healthy, then why do you still want to prefer nonvegan food ? Isn’t it for the taste of your tongue ?

Do you believe that non-vegan food is TAMASIK and it can create hinderances in your spiritual progress ? I know a famous Jyotishi from Delhi. He suggests to serve cow ,Guru and temple to strengthen Guru or Brihaspati in Kundali. He specifically suggests to refrain from consuming meat.

Its impossible for a person who consumes non veg to develop Vit B12 defiency unless they have some other disease that causes defect in absorption or utilization of vitamin B12 like pernicious anemia, drug intake, IBD etc……..So most likely your friend must have had primarily a Folate defieicny which lead to Vit B12 defieincy

When I say non veg diet…..I mean mixed diet……of course nobody is a pure non veg among humans…..we are omnivores (veg and non veg)…….and not carnivores like a lion (ie pure non veg)….And I believe the fact that we have a combination of features of both carnivores and herbivores and that some nutirents come purely from non veg…….suggests that we are menat to be omnivores

see, I don’t want to argue too much here…….I don’t want to convince u to become a non vegetarian……….and i don;t think u can convince me either……..

And No….I don’t believe in this negative energy u call TAMASIK,,,,,neither do i think its a hinderance to my spiritual progress

I agree. I think we are wasting our time pushing the non-Veg thing. I disagreed with you on the idol worshiping thing, but totally agree with you on the non-veg. I grew up non-veg. Became a veg for 7 years, and later started eating meat again. ANd those 7 years, was good, but I will say it was hard on me. I don’t think I got all the nutrients I needed.

Also I remember the story of Arjuna when he shot an arrow at a bird. Why would he do that if they didn’t eat it afterwards.

Even Buddha said eating meat wasn’t wrong. Buddha’s brother-n-law tried to implement a law to be vegetarian only, and Buddha clearly said no, that is not the way.

I read your points. You seem to say that none of our scriptures support non-vegeteraniainsm…….but u also seem to imply that none of our scriptures actually prohibit non-vegeteranianism…….but the prohibition is more of a logical result of the principle “do least harm”

Thats your only point actually…….the point regarding “ishwar sabme hain” doesn’t really matter for a non-vegeteranian because by cooking and eating we are neither creating or destroying ether mass or energy………its just changing form !!!!

So I believe your only really valid point is “do minimum harm” ! Because chaitanya is less in plants, its OK to consue plants

My answer is; When we breathe we breathe and cause the death of lot of microbes……whose chaitanya is not less……when we walk we stamp upon insects and ants, we kill the mosquito’s that bite us …….etc etc ……point is noone is purely vegeterian……..we all have different arbitary cut offs…..For eg myself wouldn’t kill another human being or any other animal knowingly for pleasure…….whereas for you, you wouldn’t kill any animals whatsover, only mosquitos, insects, ants and microbes come into your list……..whereas certain sect of Jains have much higher cut offs……they try not to harm even insects and microbes………So u see its all where we draw the line

In fac if u would commit suicide now, u would be saving lot many lives now that u would if u were to live your full quota !!!

So be happy with u being a vegetarian…….and keep it to that……..Not everyone has the same viewpoint and we don’t consider us any inferior or cruel

personally speaking just like carnivores are built to eat meat, we are meant to be omnivores as is taught from our science classes…..eventhough our teeth is not carnivore like, our eyes are carnivore -like…..and our body just wouldnt function on pure vegeterian diet……unless one artificially supplement ones diet 9which is going to…

Read our http://agniveer.com/why-i-dont-eat-meat/ . Not just Sanatana Dharma perspective, but from a variety of perspectives, meat is a harmful diet for humans and society. But beef-eating is worst offender because it is most polluting, most poverty-enhancing and most anti-economical industry for humanity. And of course, most importantly, cow is mother for 100 crore plus Indians. Hence cow-slaughter can no way be acceptable. However we must strive to bring more education and create environment where world jettisons meat-habits by itself. Let us set right examples to bring change.

and is there any scriptural verse to support your anti—non-vegeterianism?

ie does any scriptures prohibit consumption of meat?????

All the scriptures talk only about animals and plants (ie living creatures) having soul……..and the reasonoing of vegeterians is that one must not affect other souls………so killing in general needs to be avoinded……..but yet no scriptures actually put a restriction on what not to be eaten…….its our own self imposed restriction……….Now if i am wrong…..correct me by posting relevant scriptural references !!!

Its not enough that u remain a vegeterian and “look down” upon other Hindu;s eating meat without actual knowing whether one needs to be a vegeterian based on religious guidelines?

Agniveer here on his part has gone by the following reasons……..majority sentiments , economical and logical reasons to support beef ban and notably he has not used any scriptural backing

But your stance seems to imply that there is a religious doctrine (apart from pure sentiments)……..so I want to know it !!! PLEASEEE !

2. Actually a lot of Sanskrit speakers are alive. All who speak Indian languages are actually speaking distorted Sanskrit. Rest of details are in above articles.

You must have been complaining against use of Sanskrit for each and every slogan used by government since independence (and before it) – from Vande Mataram to Satyameva Jayate. I don’t know why you were silent so far.

my reply to you is with regards to my previous querries regarding beef consumption….you basically support beef ban by saying: 1)Majority decision……. 2)There is some logic too behind the ban…….u quoted pollution, water consumption , wasteage of fossil energy things like that

My opinion……what u said as logic may or may not he true……I don’t care because such logical arguments can be put forward to support any decision…….I believe,.If someone so wished, they could bring logic and scientific papers to support a ban o consumption of rice too !!!!

My point is……Even if your logic is true, this ban on beef is not based on logic , but based on public attitude and the govt wanting to earn brownie points

Now I am a non -vegetarian…..I consume beef too…..very occassinally (but strictly not cow….because cow is a very productive animal; so its emotionally not agreeable for me……..Other cattle may also be productive, but I only encounter the “productivness” of the cow; not of other cattle and I don’t have emotional issue with consuming other cattle)……..Its rare to consume beef because of the higher amount of bad cholesterol that it contains and we have much healthier alternate options than to consume beef !!!

So my question here is:

If we can put a ban on beef because we have majority……….then what will happen in future….I mean obviously some day Muslims will have majority (not sure whether the world or India will exist till then……what with the current global warming, climate shifts, jihadi’s and various other stuff)……so at that time, what is to stp Muslims from enforcing similar unforeseen things upon us?

@Jyothish basically point is that whatever is right must be done. And when there is collective consensus, there is no reason for a right to not be done.

fact remains that beef-consumption is neither healthy for body, nor good for environment, nor good for economy. There is a reason why Vedas (and Hinduism) were against beef-consumption.

Fact also remains that Vedas/ Gita teach us to follow our conscience, do the right without bothering about what will happen and what will not. That is Karma Yoga. Because what will happen is not for us to bother. What we can do is exclusively for us to decide.

Believe me, if Jyotish vows to this enlightened living (true to his name), then Dharma will have Vijay (again true to his name). Dharma shall win if we win our own self and perform our duties selflessly without bothering about results.

Destiny demands the Agniveer in Jyothish Vijay to awaken, act and transform the world.

We appreciate your views. To put things in better perspective, just think about who we are actually fighting against. It does not matter what my individual belief is, it is important that collectively we strengthen the forces on side of Dharma and weaken the forces of Adharma.

Hence all these arguments actually do not matter. When we defended Idol Worship, no argument mattered and even our personal choice did not matter. That was not even discussed in article. What mattered was that we must decimate the enemy and protect the innocents. So Agniveer remains most loyal defender of so-called idol-worshippers.

In case of beef-ban as well, I need not tell who are we actually fighting against. Everyone can read that. Anything and everything that takes their strength out is Dharma. Anything and everything that strengthens the innocents we are protecting is also Dharma. At Agniveer we follow just this criterion. And are sure that you also follow the same.

Answer: It is good that you don’t comment on blogs, because one should not comment on blogs until one has valid support of reason behind his statements.

Akash: This is the most mindless, ignorantly jingoistic and outright offensive article I have ever read.

Answer: This is just your opinion. Probably you are also a beef-eater. Most of the beef-eaters have to say the same thing when their cow-hostile habits are forbade by using the law.

Akash: Other than the inherent stupidity of what it says, it lacks logic and is filled with contradictions.

Answer: You need to also prove that the article lacks logic and that it contains contradictions. Without proving your point simply stating it shows that you are simply angry but do not know why you are angry.

Akash: But being a ‘liberalist’, no matter how much I hate what is said here, I acknowledge your right to say it and I wouldn’t want a ‘ban’ on it.

Answer: No matter how much you hate what is said in the article, the truth is not going to change, and the truth is that beef-eating is very detrimental to the law and order of society and that you will have to pay for your hatred towards the innocent animals.

Hey Veda!Hope you are doing great.You will find in this article the following:

1. STUPIDITY- a. The article says ” But the ban is not on eating. It is on killing of cattle”. Cute. Please read http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/beef-banned-in-maharashtra-5-yrs-jail-rs10000-fine-for-possession-or-sale/ Beef possession and eating is a crime now. Cow slaughter has always been prohibited. SO, PLEASE KNOW THE LAW YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. b. The article says “But so far majority of Indians consider cow as mother, killing of cows cannot be acceptable.” A classic misguided majoritarian view of democracy. Incorrect in the Indian context of course, considering we have a tremendous Constitutional mandate for rights of minorities. We like our minorities. We don’t make laws because a lot of people want them. Specially because they appeal to a religion/sentiment. Fundamental rights are beyond majoritarian ‘bull’shit. c. The legal references are just laughable. I’m a student of Law. Directive Principles of State Policy?Really? He speaks of ‘paras’ in the Constitution. Far for smart.

3. OFFENSIVE The article reads.. “If yes, I will call you pervert.” “Your sick argument mirrors exactly the views of rapist in Nirbhaya case.” “This is exactly the way ISIS terrorists think, rapists think, psychopaths think, criminals think.” Somebody was…what did you say…”simply angry” and “didnt know why” when they wrote this article.

4. ILLOGICAL Environment protection? Citing studies?Read the ‘Objects and Reasons” of this Law..please.

Also, Mr. Agniveer or whatever you call yourself. If we ever meet, you get the prize of a free lecture from me on Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence and…

Also, Mr. Agniveer or whatever you call yourself. If we ever meet, you get the prize of a free lecture from me on Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence and ‘How to make your point without getting hyper’

I guess all that we are really trying to say is that.. let us live our lives guys. We have never intended to or cared about hurting anybody’s sentiments. But if what I eat or don’t eat offends your sentiment. Well there’s a problem with you. What I do or don’t do is cannot be the concern of your sentiments (religious or otherwise). I will never force you to eat anything you don’t want because that would be offensive. But stop making a face at what I’m eating, thats offensive too.

@Akash, Can you imagine what kind of lowlife you are? 1. You enter a website that is owned by someone else who is paying for it. 2. Instead of showing basic courtesy that he allowed you to express your views on his site, despite his clear declaration that he considers cow as mother, you go on talking about killing cows insensitively. 3. Then to further expose your terrorist mindset, you called author’s defence for mother of crores (made on his own site) as stupid, contradictory, offensive and illogical. 4. Then an offer of ‘free lecture’ w/o reading the comment policy http://agniveer.com/terms/comment-policy/ which disqualifies you from even commenting on author’s website, forget about meeting him in person, shows your semi-literate status. And then you claim to be a legal expert!!.

As for your “kindness” in saying “I will never force you to eat anything you don’t want because that would be offensive. “, this kindness is a typical trait of incapable. Do you even have the force to force Agniveer to eat your choice? Grow up! And if you are student of law, follow the law. Don’t sell or possess beef, or happily be ready for jail and fine.

We very well know the law which we are talking about. The beef possession and eating is related with the slaughter of cows, calves, bulls and bullocks. The slaughter of the cows and the male and female calves of cows was ALREADY PROHIBITED in Maharashtra FULLY since 1976. Also, the slaughter of bulls, bullocks, female buffaloes and buffalo calves was also prohibited, but their slaughter wasn’t prohibited fully, i.e. it was allowed only if fit-for-slaughter certificate was given by the competent authority. So, if, there was any fraud in giving the fit-for-slaughter certificate during the period 1976 to 2015, and you have eaten the beef of those animals, then morally, you were a criminal since 1976. What this new law has made is simply explicitly announced that you are a criminal if you eat beef. It is not a great violation of rights if someone is called a criminal.

1.cont.(a) Please do not try to give us knowledge that “cow slaughter has always been prohibited”. Yes, we know that already, but the slaughter of bulls and bullocks was not prohibited, who are also “male” cows. This new law (1995-2015) has simply also banned their slaughter, and in this way, made the law complete. In other words, the 1995-law has made CORRECTIONS into 1976-law (it is just an amendment law). Had the makers of the 1976-law made the law perfect at that time itself, then the clause to also additionally criminalize possession of beef and eating/selling would have been in effect at that time itself (in 1976). But unfortunately, that was not done. But this mistake was corrected in 1995. The same thing has simply been implemented in 2015. You were already a criminal SINCE 1976 if you ate beef, but you did not know it. Now you know it. That is the only difference. But there is absolutely no need to call someone STUPID if you are not aware of the actual facts. By calling Agniveer STUPID, you are ALSO calling GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA stupid, who made the law. Also, you are calling CONSTITUTION OF INDIA stupid, which is the basis of the new amendment law, and you are also calling SUPREME COURT OF INDIA stupid, who has already said in 2005 that the complete ban on slaughter of cow progeny is INTRA VIRES the Constitution.

Did you not read Agniveer’s argument in this article before posting a comment on it?–“If you can create beef in laboratory without killing my mother (cow), I have absolutely no issues with you.” That’s exactly the spirit behind the additional clause of criminalization of eating beef. You may or may not agree with it. But that doesn’t mean that you should call your opponent STUPID. This is not the spirit of being a ‘liberalist’.

I mean to say, by calling Agniveer STUPID, you have actually proven yourself to be a STUPID. (cont.)

b. The article says “But so far majority of Indians consider cow as mother, killing of cows cannot be acceptable.” A classic misguided majoritarian view of democracy. Incorrect in the Indian context of course, considering we have a tremendous Constitutional mandate for rights of minorities.

Answer:

This is your own misguided view of Indian Constitution. The Constitution of India prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. For the Constitution, all religions are equal. All religions’ rights should be protected, which also includes Hindu religion. Moreover, the protection of cow progeny isn’t simply necessary for the protection of Hindu rights. The protection of cow progeny is required for the protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life. It is also proven to be the basis of Indian economy. If you don’t know about it, then read the Supreme Court judgement of 2005 where the judge gives numerous evidences proving the cow to be the basis of Indian economy. Therefore, protection of cow and her progeny is VERY MUCH CORRECT in the India context. Even if, there were no existence of Hindu religion, the India’s cultural heritage requires that the cow and her progeny should be protected.

You are talking about the Constitutional mandate for the rights of minorities, but you are ignoring so much constitutional mandate for the protection of natural environment. If minorities’ rights interfere with natural environment, then the minorities rights should be rejected.

But, fortunately, in actuality, none of the minorities’ rights interfere with protection of cow and her progeny. In other words, also, the main minorities MUSLIMS rights do NOT interfere with protection of cow and her progeny. (cont.)

1.cont.(c) For example, way back in 1959, the Supreme Court of India has noted the following.

In the case of Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, 1959,

SUPREME COURT JUDGE said as follows

(in 1959):

“It is part of the known history of India that the Moghul Emperor Babar saw the wisdom of prohibiting the slaughter of cows as and by way of religious sacrifice and directed his son Humayun to follow this example. Similarly, Emperors Akbar, Jehangir and Ahmad Shah, it is said, prohibited cow slaughter. Nawab Hyder Ali of Mysore made cow slaughter an offence punishable with the cutting of the hands of the offenders. Three of the members of the Gosamvardhan Enquiry Committee set up by the Uttar Pradesh Government in 1953 were Muslims and concurred in the unanimous recommendation for total ban on slaughter of cows. We have, however, no material on the record before us which will enable us to say, in the face of the foregoing facts, that the sacrifice of a cow on that day is an obligatory overt act for a Mussalman to exhibit his religious belief and idea. In the premises, it is not possible for us to uphold this claim of the petitioners.”

In the 2005 judgement of the Supreme Court of India, which went in favor of full protection of cow and her progeny, the Supreme Court quoted its abovementioned own past finding of 1959 and commented on the same as follows:

“No one specially competent to expound the religious tenets of Islam filed any affidavit and no reference was made to any particular Surah of the Holy Quran which, in terms, requires the sacrifice of a cow. ” (cont.)

1.cont.(d) In the same 2005 case, the Supreme Court also quoted its another own past verdict,

“In State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Ashutosh Lahiri, (1995) 1 SCC 189, this Court has noted that sacrifice of any animal by muslims for the religious purpose on BakrI’d does not include slaughtering of cow as the only way of carrying out that sacrifice. Slaughtering of cow on BakrI’d is neither essential to nor necessarily required as part of the religious ceremony. An optional religious practice is not covered by Article 25(1).”

Similarly, again citing itself, the Supreme Court said (in the same 2005 judgement),

“the Supreme Court held that it was a settled legal position that there was no fundamental right of Muslims to insist on slaughter of healthy cows on the occasion of BakrI’d.”

We like our minorities. We don’t make laws because a lot of people want them.

Answer:

The same thing can be said about beef-eaters:

We cannot legally permit beef-eating because a lot of people want them!

3. Akash:

Specially because they appeal to a religion/sentiment.

Answer:

In the same way, although Muslims or Christians might want (wrongly) to eat beef as their religion/ sentiment, we cannot grant beef-eating.

4. Akash:

Fundamental rights are beyond majoritarian ‘bull’shit.

Answer:

Beef-eating cannot be proved to be a fundamental right.

5. Akash:

c. The legal references are just laughable.

Answer:

The whole of ‘Akash’ philosophy is just laughable.

6. Akash:

I’m a student of Law. Directive Principles of State Policy?Really? He speaks of ‘paras’ in the Constitution. Far for smart.

Answer:

You say that you are a student of law. But it is doubtful whether you even know the basics of law. You don’t even know that the Directive Principles of State Policy (PART IV of Indian Constitution) includes the following:

Article 48 {Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry}

The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.

This is said in response to beef-eater’s illegal demand of breaking the law in the name of democracy.

A thief might say that he has the freedom to enter my house and steal my wealth, but since this freedom interferes with my freedom of protecting my wealth, the Law will punish the thief for executing his illegal (so called) freedom. Also, but, at the same time, the thief cannot tell me, “Don’t put your wealth in the locker.” This is like thief imposing his moral policing on me. So there is no contradiction in the two statements (1) “Thief’s freedom to steal ends where my house begins.” and (2) “Thief cannot dictate his moral policing on me.”

3OFFENSIVE The article reads..”If yes, I will call you pervert.” “Your sick argument mirrors exactly the views of rapist in Nirbhaya case.” “This is exactly the way ISIS terrorists think, rapists think, psychopaths think, criminals think.” Somebody was…what did you say…”simply angry” and “didnt know why” when they wrote this article.

Answer:

The same example. A pervert thief with sick mentality may protest against a rape-victim for opposing the rapist. Such a thief is worse than a terrorist and may argue like a psychopath. He ideally cannot protest because he is a criminal. Even if he becomes angry on police, he cannot address the public who calls him a criminal as offensive.

Even though an activity which was always unlawful wasn’t proved as such earlier, it is still an unlawful activity. Even if you want to blame someone for not letting you know that it was an unlawful activity, then you can find some other entities such as the society in which you are born to blame. But you can never blame the law-makers for making the laws just because your crime wasn’t regarded as crime earlier.

More than anything else, the reason is the false ego of beef-eaters than the taste of the beef that they are opposing the ban so vehemently. But when a person lives in a society, he ought to give up his ego. The cow-lovers were doing the same thing till today when beef-lovers were eating the flesh of an entity whom they considered as their mother. Of course, this’s not cited as the only reason why beef is banned. Fortunately, for cow-lovers, there are many other reasons, as indicated earlier, for justifying the ban on slaughter of cow and her progeny.

4ILLOGICAL Environment protection? Citing studies?Read the ‘Objects and Reasons” of this Law..please.

Answer:

The copy of the new Amendment law of Maharashtra State is still not available online. But I can quote the OBJECTS AND REASONS of a similar law of Gujarat State, which was passed nearly at the same time i.e. 20 years ago.

[The Maharashtra Amendment Law was passed in 1995 and the Gujarat Amendment Law was passed in 1994. The Gujarat’s law became officially implemented since 2006 and now, Maharashtra’s law is being officially implemented since now i.e. 2015.]

Since Maharashtra’s Law isn’t yet available online, I am quoting the OBJECTS AND REASONS of Gujarat’s law.

“WHEREAS it is established that cow and her progeny sustain the health of the nation by giving them the life giving milk which is so essential an item in a scientifically balanced diet; AND WHEREAS the working bullocks are indispensable for our agriculture for they supply power more than any other animal; AND WHEREAS the working bullocks are often useful in ploughing the fields, drawal of water from the wells and also very useful for drawing carts for transporting grains and fodders from the fields to the residences of farmers as well as to the Agricultural Market Yards; AND WHEREAS the dung of the animal is cheaper than the artificial manures and extremely useful for production of bio-gas; AND WHEREAS it is established that the back- bone of Indian agriculture is, in a manner of speaking the cow and her progeny and have, on their back, the whole structure of the Indian agriculture and its economic system; AND WHEREAS it is expedient to give effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles laid down in articles 47, 48 and in clauses (b) and (c) of articles 39 of the Constitution of India and to protect, preserve and sustain cow and its progeny;”

“The existing provisions of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 provides for prohibition against the slaughter of cow, calf of a cow, and the bulls and bullocks below the age of sixteen years. It is an established fact that the cow and her progeny sustain the health of the nation by giving them the life giving milk which is so essential an item in a scientifically balanced diet.

The economy of the State of Gujarat is still predominantly agricultural. In the agricultural sector, use of animals for milch, draught, breeding or agricultural purposes has great importance. It has, therefore, become necessary to emphasise preservation and protection of agricultural animals like bulls and bullocks. With the growing adoption of non-conventional energy sources like bio- gas plants, even waste material have come to assume considerable value. After the cattle cease to breed or are too old to do work, they still continue to give dung for fuel, manure and bio-gas, and therefore, they cannot be said to be useless. It is well established that the backbone of Indian agriculture is, in a manner of speaking, the cow and her progeny and have on their back, the whole structure of the Indian agriculture and its economic system.

In order to give effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles laid down in articles 47, 48 and clause (b) and (c) of article 39 of the Constitution of India, it was considered necessary also to impose total prohibition against slaughter of progeny of cow.

As the Gujarat Legislative Assembly was not in session the Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Ordinance, 1993 to amend the said Act was promulgated to achieve the aforesaid object in the interest of general public. This Bill seeks to replace the said Ordinance by an Act of the State Legislature.”

Also, Mr. Agniveer or whatever you call yourself. If we ever meet, you get the prize of a free lecture from me on Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence and ‘How to make your point without getting hyper’

Answer:

Akash, we have serious doubts about your claim that you are a law student. If you are a really a student, then please, first complete your studies, and then think about giving lectures.

11. Akash:

I guess all that we are really trying to say is that.. let us live our lives guys. We have never intended to or cared about hurting anybody’s sentiments. But if what I eat or don’t eat offends your sentiment. Well there’s a problem with you.

Answer:

This shows that, you are still guessing what you are really wanting to say. But, in any case, we don’t always intend to hurt non-vegetarian’s feelings. But if you are eating the flesh of the emblem of Indian civilization and the basis of Indian economy, then as RASHTRA-BHAKTAS (devotees of the nation), we will not allow it at any cost. Yes, our greatest problem is that we just don’t think about our own selfish desires and our own conveniences—we think about the whole nation. And, for protecting the welfare of the nation, if we have to, sometimes, hurt some people’s feelings, then we don’t mind doing it.

What I do or don’t do is cannot be the concern of your sentiments (religious or otherwise). I will never force you to eat anything you don’t want because that would be offensive. But stop making a face at what I’m eating, thats offensive too. Its simple.

Answer:

The argument that “What I do or don’t do cannot be the concern of your sentiments” is a very poor argument. The same example of the rapist can be given in this regard. I mean to say, once again, whether it is a religious or non-religious is not important in this case. The whole point is that the ban is NOT simply for religious purposes. In other words, we are not citing our religious sentiment as our main reasoning in this case. For example, in all my answers above, I never cited the religion as a ground. Our main argument is about the ECONOMY of the nation. That is the main contention. Once this is taken into consideration, then whether someone makes faces at your eating or not becomes an irrelevant point. The point is that, the cow and her progeny is the basis of INDIAN ECONOMY. How this is so cannot be shown in a debate such as this one (since it will involve abundance of information). But that can be proven to people provided they are ready to listen.

–Beef possession and eating is a crime now…..SO, PLEASE KNOW THE LAW YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.– 1. Possession and sale is crime. Not eating. Prove to court that your possess beef that was produced in your office without killing any cattle and definitely you can escape the punishment. So far that technology has not been brought to light by geniuses like you, hence the law is accordingly worded.

–A classic misguided majoritarian view of democracy. Incorrect in the Indian context of course, considering we have a tremendous Constitutional mandate for rights of minorities. — 1. There is no violation of rights of minorities here. At least makers of constitution and Supreme Court doesn’t think so. So does Agniveer. 2. Highlight misguided aspects of constitution and Supreme Court. Don’t accuse Agniveer. Explain to public why you did not challenge Supreme Court after its observations of 2005?

–The legal references are just laughable. I’m a student of Law. Directive Principles of State Policy?Really? He speaks of ‘paras’ in the Constitution. Far for smart.– 1. Does calling references from constitution as “paras” make the references inadmissible in court? As per which law? Which section? 2. You are student of law. Justice Lahoti, makers of constitution, Justice Lodha, framers of this law are experts of laws. Crib against them, not Agniveer.

— If we ever meet, you get the prize of a free lecture from me on Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence and ‘How to make your point without getting hyper’– 1. Please market your law training business to Justice Lahoti who gave SC judgment upholding ban on cow slaughter in Gujarat in 2005, Justice Guman Mal Lodha and his team for National Commission Report on cattle and President of India for giving a nod to the law.

ISLAM ENCOURAGING/PROMOTING KINDNESS TO ANIMAL MORE THAN ANY RELIGION ON EARTH

KILLING ANIMAL DURING MORAL WAR PROHIBITED Malik :: Book 21 : Hadith 21.3.10 Do not kill women or children or an aged, weak person,Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees.Do not destroy an inhabited place. *************Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food***************. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, GIVE WATER TO DOG Bukhari :: Book 3 :: Volume 43 :: Hadith 646 Malik :: Book 49 : Hadith 49.10.23 LOVE & MERCY TO ANIMAL Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 67 :: Hadith 423 Narrated Said bin Jubair: While I was with Ibn ‘Umar, we passed by a group of young men who had tied a hen and started shooting at it. When they saw Ibn ‘Umar, they dispersed, leaving it. On that Ibn ‘Umar said, “Who has done this? The Prophet cursed the one who did so.” Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 67 :: Hadith 424 Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: The Prophet cursed the one who did Muthla to an animal (i e., cut its limbs or some other part of its body while it is still alive). Muslim :: Book 24 : Hadith 5283 Jabir reported that there happened to pass before Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) an ass the face of which had been cauterised(burn), whereupon he said: Allah has cursed one who has cauterised it (on the face). Bukhari :: Book 8 :: Volume 73 :: Hadith 38 Forbad killing animal even for medicine: Dawud :: Book 28 : Hadith 3862 Jew Prostitute sin forgiven for given water to dog Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 56 :: Hadith 673

Muslims must join Agniveer to strengthen the cause of animal rights. This is their religious duty as per the given Hadiths. Now that killing of animals is not required even for food and in fact animal food is causing pollution and poverty (refer #4 of article), devoted Muslims must promote the cause of vegetarianism. We wholeheartedly welcome them for the common cause.

A. Irrespective of right or wrong, reality in democratic (and even non-democratic) world is that majority defines its acceptance. A large number of things – tobacco, alcohol, junk food etc – thrive purely because it is acceptable to majority. In many societies even polygamy and child marriage thrive because it is acceptable. You yourself gave example of Kerala.

B. Such contexts cannot be symmetric. Majority may be doing something out of legacy. In UP, tobacco consumption was culture. But the way forward has to be based on rationality, compassion, justice and impact on society.

In other words, if majority wants to do something that is based on rationality, compassion, justice and good impact on society, then there is no reason why it should not be done.

But contrary is not necessarily true. If majority is indulged in malpractices, that only means that malpractices must be eradicated. It can happen through education, awareness and law. In democracy, sometimes “law” may not be feasible option if awareness is not proper. Hence rule of majority thrives – whether we like or not.

But to not exercise the rule of majority where we can – to eradicate a malpractice – would be a crime.

So yes, currently beef may be staple food of Kerala and hence beef-ban may not be feasible. But in years to come, with education, that is bound to happen. Just as dengue mosquito cultivation is banned in Delhi, this will happen across…

@AGNIVEER WE MUSLIM RESPECT VEDA ,SANDHANA DHARMA& REAL HINDUISM……. Rig Veda 5.29.8 When thou [Indra] three hundred buffaloes’ flesh hadst eaten, and drunk Atharva Veda 9.4.18 All Gods promote the Braman who offers the Bull in sacrifice. Shukla Yajur Veda 2.2.9 At the time of the (offering of the) cow, he should offer on one potsherd to Mitra and Varuna, this (offering) corresponds to his foe’s cow which is to be slaughtered Devi Bhagwatam 1.18.48-61…O King! One can see before one’s eyes that the drinking of Soma rasa, the killing of animals, the eating of fish and flesh and so are advised in the Vedas; The Dharma Sutras, Gutama 17.37. And (animals) that must be slain for (the fulfilment of) the sacred law…….may be eaten both by the priests and other Brahmanas. Among the Smrities, the Manu Smriti alone is authentic.- Satyarth Prakash pg 142 Manu Smriti 5.32 He who eats meat, when he honours the gods and manes, commits no sin, Manu Smriti 5.42 A twice-born man who, knowing the true meaning of the Veda, slays an animal for these purposes, causes both himself and the animal to enter a most blessed state. Manu Smriti 5.39-40 Swayambhu (the Self-existent) himself created animals for the sake of sacrifices; sacrifices(have been instituted) for the good of this whole (world); hence the slaughtering (of beasts) for sacrifices is not slaughtering (in the ordinary sense of the word).Herbs, trees, cattle, birds, and (other) animals that have been destroyed for sacrifices, Manu Smriti 5.56 There is no sin in eating meat, Manu Smriti 5.31 ‘The consumption of meat (is befitting) for sacrifices,’ that is declared to be a rule made by the gods;

SO WE LIKE TO EAT BEEF AS ORDERED FROM HINDU SCRIPTURE & WE R NOT LIKE ANTI HINDU ,THE PPL WHO REJECT THE ABOVE MORAL VERSES FROM VEDA & UPANISHID……THEY R ENEMY OF HINDUISM……..

Meat-eater will try everything to justify meat consumption. These people are stopped by force in any society otherwise they will continue to preach their ideology . They will do intentionally wrong translations of scriptures to justify their acts. As a pedophile does not find anything wrong in sex with child, A cannibal does not find anything wrong in consuming human flesh. All people acts according to their tendencies.

Problem in this world is good people never unite against falsehood while false people always unite to fight with goodness.

Dear bro, say as you wish but it is fact Allah is God of 1.5 Billion people. Holy Quran advocates to its followers to curse the non-believers.

Holy Quran says:-

3.61: If any one disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full) knowledge Hath come to thee, say: “Come! let us gather together,- our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves: Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie!”

So you don’t think that the verse u quote is being quoted “out of context” or something????

You mean to say that the above mentioned verse was not meant for the two christians who asked about Jesus to Mohammed PBUH………and even if u r to generalize…….doesn’t u think the curse is meant for ONLY those who recieved full knowledge and then lied??

I wonder if you are genuinely concerned about this issue, or are you using it to gain instant publicity in a country filled with religious extremists( just like Mr.Modi did). Majority rule can not be the only expression of “supreme power” in a democracy.If so,the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority. I see a budding Chetan Bhagat in you, dishing out bullshit to the crazed masses, and benefiting hugely in the process. Mr. Modi also belongs to the same category, as I can see clearly from the points you mentioned from the manifesto. And for your information, BJP was able to get only 31% of the votes polled in the 2014 loksabha elections. So please spare the rest of us, and mind your own business. If tomorrow you guys feel that banana is a “religious fruit” should the rest of us be forced to never touch it again? There are much more important things to be taken care of in this country, where 50% of the children are undernourished. Please don’t spread such vitriolic content in the internet. It has enough crap already.

Cattle protection is my business. Your beef-brain seems to have a problem with it. It does? I DONT CARE!

—-There are much more important things to be taken care of in this country, where 50% of the children are undernourished—-

Read #4 “(… – Water footprint of beef is highest of all food. Estimates range from 441 gallons to 12008 gallons of water per pound of beef. In comparison, rice and wheat are 50 to 100 times more efficient!! Forget about India, there is a global movement to sway people away from beef to ensure our future generations have water to drink and food to eat. Refer http://www.gracelinks.org/blog/1143/beef-the-king-of-the-big-water-footprints

-Beef production is most inefficient use of fossil energy at an energy input to output ratio of 54:1.

Majority rule can not be the only expression of “supreme power” in a democracy.If so,the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority. I am not bound to follow your whims and fancies, even if you form the majority. If in the future you decide to eat a community of humans and follow #12, would it mean we have no alternative, coz the “majority” demands it? Getting personal in an argument is the biggest sign of stupidity 🙂

—–There are much more important things to be taken care of in this country, where 50% of the children are undernourished.—–

So what are you doing here commenting like a fool? Commenting on this post will feed some of the undernourished children?

—–Majority rule can not be the only expression of “supreme power” in a democracy.—-

If democracy doesn’t suit you, move to African Jungles. There you can eat flesh of whoever you want. Even cannibal rights are protected there.

——–If so,the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority.——

So best way is to make someone PM who has got no seats in assemblies and parliament? Make some Choudhary Dharam Pal Baagpat Vaale as PM of India because someone with votes can tyrannize the minority? And Choudhary Dharam Pal Baagpat Vaale will protect everybody’s rights. Good, start the movement to elect him as PM.

——-I am not bound to follow your whims and fancies, even if you form the majority.—-

You ARE bound to follow the law of the land. Kill cow in Maharashtra and get jailed for 5 years. Live with it 🙂

——If in the future you decide to eat a community of humans and follow #12, would it mean we have no alternative——-

Beef-lovers are too dumb to realize that this argument actually works against them! Because in beef-ban case, ban-supporters are asking you NOT TO KILL someone. They are fighting to protect someone’s life. Whereas the dumb beef-eaters are hell bent in KILLING in name of choice. There is all probability that your group of dumbass is going to demand cannibalism next. But believe me, your butts will be kicked as soon as you do that. And yes, there wont be any alternative for you. You will have to behave like humans.

I invite all Muslim brothers to call upon Allah curse on Vajra that he will die with in 3 days for not worshiping true God. If Vajra will be false he will not alive after 3 days.

Holy Quran says:-

3.61: If any one disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full) knowledge Hath come to thee, say: “Come! let us gather together,- our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves: Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie!”

@kar-THICK ———– ” Getting personal in an argument is the biggest sign of stupidity “———

You beef-brain doesn’t get it, does it? It got personal the moment you stepped in to show that you wanna kill and eat my cattle as soon as their life is no longer economically profitable for you ( when it is in actuality, but thats immaterial here ) !

I am not interested in winning logical-argument points with an idiot like you. I am just trying to make you realize beforehand why I won’t act rationally/ humanely with you, if you’re not human enough to understand why innocents must to be protected; especially when whole of our society is indebted to a lifetime of contributions in numerous forms and ways, from these cattle animals.

All humans do is abuse, use and finally kill cows. Its the same in the UK and in India.

If you call the animal your mother, why do you sods drink milk? isn’t your biological mothers milk enough? Why should you have to drink the milk meant for the offspring of the animal? Why do adult have to drink bovine milk? you have made an industry out of this. Selling cow urine, isnt there a business angle

All you holier than thou sods here, GO VEGAN. But i bet you wont, as there is money in exploiting dairy animals under the guide of religion

robot puddy: “If you call the animal your mother, why do you sods drink milk? isn’t your biological mothers milk enough? Why should you have to drink the milk meant for the offspring of the animal? ” – If milk is non vegan. than you must be born non vegan, then why go vegan (for you) ?? We have tradition of taking out only the remaining milk from cow after calf drinks upto its capacity. – If if you dont milk the cow (the cow like gyr and kankrej) it will imbalance their hormones and make her uncomfortable and unhappy. – There are so many CALFs in india which gives milk and we dont have dangerous milking machines like in your country. In india cow only gives milk to the people they love. You are welcome to vrindavan to see it.

Rudra, Look mate, humans should drink milk, but human milk, till they reach an age where they can consume vegetables. That’s natural.

Do you even know what being vegan means for the love of god.. yes bovine milk is NON VEGAN. When a child drinks her mothers milk, its due to a biological need. The mother is not forcibly milked and profited from.

You people who give the cow a status of your mother know deep in your hearts that its commercial. The dairy industry is a bloody business. And consuming milk is just as bad as eating beef or pork or chicken or turkey or any living being, because you are incentivizing people who put an animal though misery just to profit.

I’ve been to India and have seen how major milk companies work, just as capitalist as farms back in the UK, and if you say you love the cows and milk them only after the calf has had her fill you are either deluded or full of manure.

Even in India they use milk aspirators, to put it crudely, machines that pump put milk from the cows udders till they are bloody sore.

Not to mention the artificial impregnation, hormones and antibiotics. Yes that’s what happens in India too. Except maybe if a few village folk own their own cattle.

And the logic that “If if you dont milk the cow (the cow like gyr and kankrej) it will imbalance their hormones and make her uncomfortable and unhappy.” is so half assed that i dont even find it funny.

What hormone imbalance? What authoritative study can you quote to back this up? if that were the case any wild cow wouldn’t live her natural life happy? I read on another blog where some retarded bloke said that if you don’t milk a cow she dies of sepsis..

Banning the killing of cows is a start, but please stop defending people who run “concentration camps” to harvest milk from an animal using the most inhuman means.

So the blog author or authors, pardon my lack of knowledge if you are one individual or an organisation as the blog has a photograph of a single person and in the posts you refer to aginveer in the third person which would imply an organisation.

Anyway so if you love cows so much perhaps an expose on the dairy industry is the need of the hour and your “Cow worshipping” government should add this to their agenda too.

“In india cow only gives milk to the people they love.You are welcome to vrindavan to see it.”

No sir, you have domesticated cows solely for your profit, don’t hide under the guise of benevolence

I still say Go Vegan and stop incentivizing the murder of animals, its time innit?

(1) Robert Puddy:—-Rudra, Look mate, humans should drink milk, but human milk, till they reach an age where they can consume vegetables. That’s natural.—-

Answer: As per the Vedic scriptures the cow is one of the 7 mothers. According to scriptures, there are seven mothers: (1) the real mother, (2) the wife of the spiritual master, (3) the wife of a brahmana, (4) the wife of the king, (5) the cow, (6) the nurse, and (7) the earth. All of them are mothers. God has arranged the nature in such a way that in the childhood one drinks the milk of his/her mother, but after growing up he/she can take the milk from cow and in return he/she serves the cow, because cow is the mother. The human being should take the milk from the cow after the calf is completely satisfied. If the cow is served like a mother, then the cow will be satisfied completely and then she will give excess milk, when can then be taken by the human beings.

(2) Robert Puddy:—-Do you even know what being vegan means for the love of god.. yes bovine milk is NON VEGAN. When a child drinks her mothers milk, its due to a biological need. The mother is not forcibly milked and profited from.—-

Answer: Dear Robert Puddy, if you know what being vegan means for the love of God, then you should certainly not kill the cow, who is the mother of the humankind, and you should also never kill the bull, who is like the father. The Vedic civilization views the cow and the bull in this way. Why should you have any objection? As per the Vedic scriptures the milk is NOT nonveg. It is veg. Please refine your definitions of what is veg and nonveg. Don’t change the definitions to suit your own selfish motives. The lovers of nonveg food may say that the milk is nonveg food because they want to cheat the world by saying milk and meat are on the same level. But actually, when the milk is taken from cow, the cow is not killed. Hence, the milk is veg. Are you one of those beef-eaters who want to prove that consuming beef is less sinful than consuming milk?

(3) Robert Puddy:—-You people who give the cow a status of your mother know deep in your hearts that its commercial. —-

Answer: Dear Robert Puddy, you know deep in your heart that you are writing this because you want to prove consuming beef as legal as consuming milk. And the best way to do that is to somehow prove that milk is as sinful as beef. But no matter how hard you try, you cannot win this argument because even a child will understand the difference between the milk and the beef. Even if you take out the milk in the cruelest possible way, still it cannot be equated to killing the animal completely and eating its beef. Moreover, when you take out beef, the animal stops giving everything—–beef, skin, bones, intestines—-all these can be taken only once. But when we take the milk, the animal is at least alive, and it can give the milk even the next day. Even the animal is going to die naturally some day. At that time, you can even take out the skin. But the meat eaters don’t care. They just want to eat the beef, and for that, they are ready to kill the innocent animals immediately.

(4) Robert Puddy:—-The dairy industry is a bloody business. —-

Answer: That’s why we want to stop this business. But when we do that, the same people like you will also shout against that. The dairy industry was started by the Britishers whose only aim was to squeeze India and loot its riches. They didn’t care if the India gets destroyed by this process.

(5) Robert Puddy:—-And consuming milk is just as bad as eating beef or pork or chicken or turkey or any living being, because you are incentivizing people who put an animal though misery just to profit.—-

Answer: That’s why we want to stop the dairy culture, and our goal is that EVERYONE should keep the cow and the bull in their house (at least in villages) and treat them like their real mother and father, and not exploit them for the milk. And please note that even without the milk the animals will not be burdensome to the house if the farmers utilize the dung and urine of the animals properly under guidance, without giving trouble to the animals. We don’t want these dairies where animals are badly treated, and ultimately slaughtered. The dairies are equivalent to slaughterhouses because the main business of the dairies is the “meat”-business, and the milk is only the side business.

(6) Robert Puddy:—-I’ve been to India and have seen how major milk companies work, just as capitalist as farms back in the UK, —-

Answer: That’s why we want to restore India to its past glories—to its state before Britishers came and destroyed India. That is our goal. And if people like you come and try to stop us, then we will have not even slightest shame in destroying such plans.

(7) Robert Puddy:—-and if you say you love the cows and milk them only after the calf has had her fill you are either deluded or full of manure.—-

Answer: But if you quote the above as a reason to slaughter the cows and the bulls and also think that people will believe you, then you don’t have head.

(8) Robert Puddy:—-Even in India they use milk aspirators, to put it crudely, machines that pump put milk from the cows udders till they are bloody sore.—-

Answer: Such practices should certainly be stopped. But the worst practice is killing them altogather, which should be stopped first.

(9) Robert Puddy:—-Not to mention the artificial impregnation, hormones and antibiotics. Yes that’s what happens in India too. Except maybe if a few village folk own their own cattle.—-

Answer: Robert, this is coming from the British. This was not there originally in India. But we are going to try our best to stop all these things. But the first step is to stop their slaughter.

(10) Robert Puddy:—-And the logic that “If if you dont milk the cow (the cow like gyr and kankrej) it will imbalance their hormones and make her uncomfortable and unhappy.” is so half assed that i dont even find it funny.—-

Answer: Nobody cares what you feel about it. The fact that you are so inimical to the God-given ideas of obtaining milk from cow proves that you are a beef-eater but posing your false love towards cattle because your meat-eating facilities are at stake now. Your abusive language shows your culture, but we least care about you because we know how to deal with pretenders like you.

(11) Robert Puddy:—-What hormone imbalance? What authoritative study can you quote to back this up? if that were the case any wild cow wouldn’t live her natural life happy? I read on another blog where some retarded bloke said that if you don’t milk a cow she dies of sepsis..—-

Answer: Dear Robert Puddy, the process of obtaining milk is the natural process given by God and we don’t require any authoritative study to prove this natural process, because, for us, the God is the highest authority. Hence, we don’t care for your any other so-called authority. You are accusing others by using the terms like “retarded bloke” and “half-assed” etc which shows your anger arisen due to opposition to your beef-eating ideas. But actually your head is retarded because you are putting obstacles in the ways of God, which is that the cow and her progeny should always be protected, and God has allowed us to take the milk from the cow provided we serve the cow nicely like a mother.

(12) Robert Puddy:—-Banning the killing of cows is a start, but please stop defending people who run “concentration camps” to harvest milk from an animal using the most inhuman means.—-

Answer: Nobody is defending here the people who give distress to cow. We agree that we should be “human” while dealing with the animals. And to be “human” means never kill any animal just for the taste of the tongue.

(13) Robert Puddy:—-So the blog author or authors, pardon my lack of knowledge if you are one individual or an organisation as the blog has a photograph of a single person and in the posts you refer to aginveer in the third person which would imply an organisation.—-

Answer: First you show your photo.

(14) Robert Puddy:—-Anyway so if you love cows so much perhaps an expose on the dairy industry is the need of the hour and your “Cow worshipping” government should add this to their agenda too.—-

Answer: Thank you for giving this advice. We definitely respect good advices. But your overall presentation shows that this advice is not given with a pure heart. In any case, we admire that, at least, in the end, you spoke something responsible. You will always get due justice from us.

(15) Robert Puddy’s comments on “In india cow only gives milk to the people they love.You are welcome to vrindavan to see it.”——–No sir, you have domesticated cows solely for your profit, don’t hide under the guise of benevolence.—-

Answer: We agree that, some bad elements of the society have done that. But in any case, killing the cows and bulls is the most mentally retarded thing a human can do to them.—-

(16) Robert Puddy:—-I still say Go Vegan and stop incentivizing the murder of animals, its time innit?—-

Answer: If you really support “Vegan” then you should not give any arguments against protecting cows and her progeny.

@Atul Mohan – Do you think the Supreme Court Judges are fools to give a judgment in favor of cow protection? BTW, the government launched a scheme to financially support goshalas on the condition that they must take care of 40% desi cows that do not give milk.

Rs. 500 crore was allocated for this. So, poor farmers can get the money and build a goshala. Later, they can use organic farming methods and reduce the economic burden of buying chemical fertilizers and pesticides. So, that’s the big plan!

Brothers i am a vegetarian.so don’t see me as a beef eater.but my doubt is not yet clarified.what will do poor farmers do if there cattle become old and non productive.it is not gud for them to keep old cattles just only for urine and dung.because both cattles which yield milk and not yield milk will consume same amount of food and give same amount of dung and urine.so they naturally go for selling their beloved cows.if u ban killing they will just abandon them will inturn result in more misery for cows.so how ur going to help my farmers.will u pay as same money as a butcher and take the old cows??how u r going to raise those cows economically?is it like oldage home?please answer me and clarify my doubts.

We have, apart from the affidavits, mainly referred to the reports published by the Government of India, whose veracity cannot be doubted.

We do not find any material brought on record on behalf of the respondents which could rebut, much less successfully, the correctness of the deductions flowing from the documented facts and statistics stated hereinabove.

The utility of cow cannot be doubted at all. A total ban on cow slaughter has been upheld even in Quareshi-I. The controversy in the present case is confined to cow progeny. The important role that cow and her progeny play in the Indian Economy was acknowledged in Quareshi-I in the following words:

“The discussion in the foregoing paragraphs clearly establishes the usefulness of the cow and her progeny. They sustain the health of the nation by giving them the life giving milk which is so essential an item in a scientifically balanced diet. The working bullocks are indispensable for our agriculture, for they supply power more than any other animal. Good breeding bulls are necessary to improve the breed so that the quality and stamina of the future cows and working bullocks may increase and the production of food and milk may improve and be in abundance. The dung of the animal is cheaper than the artificial manures and is extremely useful. In short, the back bone of Indian agriculture is in a manner of speaking the cow and her progeny. Indeed Lord Linlithgow has truly said – “The cow and the working bullock have on their patient back the whole structure of Indian agriculture.” (Report on the Marketing of Cattle in India, p. 20). If, therefore, we are to attain sufficiency in the production of food, if we are to maintain the nation’s health, the efficiency and breed of our cattle population must be considerably improved. To attain the above objectives, we must devote greater attention to the preservation, protection and improvement of the stock and organise our agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines.”

On the basis of the available material, we are fully satisfied to hold that the ban on slaughter of cow progeny as imposed by the impugned enactment is in the interests of the general public within the meaning of clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution. … QUOTATION ENDS:

37.1 The cows are slaughtered in India because the owner of the cow finds it difficult to maintain her after she stops yielding milk. This is because it is generally believed that milk is the only commodity obtained from cows, which is useful and can be sold in exchange of cash. This notion is totally wrong. Cow yields products other than milk, which are valuable and saleable. Thus the dung as well as the urine of cow can be put to use by owner himself or sold to persons or organizations to process them. The Commission noticed that there are a good number of organizations (goshalas) which keep the cows rescued while being carried to slaughter houses. Very few of such cows are milk yielding. Such organizations use the urine and dung produced by these cows to prepare Vermi-compost or any other form of bio manure and urine for preparing pest repellents. The money collected by the sale of such products is normally sufficient to allow maintenance of the cows. In some cases, the urine and dung is used to prepare the medical formulations also. The organizations, which are engaged in such activities, are making profits also.

37.2 Commission examined the balance sheet of some such organizations. The expenditure and income of one such organization is displayed here. In order to make accounts simple the amounts are calculated as average per cow per day.

It is obvious that expenditure per cow is Rs. 15-25 cow/day.

While the income from sale is Rs. 25-35 cow-day.

37.3 These averages make it clear that the belief that cows which do not yield milk are unprofitable and burden for the owner is totally false. In fact it can be said that products of cow are sufficient to maintain them even without milk. The milk in such cases is only a by-product.

37.4 It is obvious that all cow owners do not engage in productions of fertilizers or insect repellents. It can also be understood that such activity may not be feasible for owners of a single or a few cows. In such cases, the cow’s urine and dung may be supplied to such organizations, which utilize these materials for producing finished products required for agricultural or medicinal purpose. Commission has noticed that some organizations which are engaged in production of agricultural and medical products from cow dung and urine do purchase raw materials from nearby cow owner at a price which is sufficient to maintain the cow.” (Report of National Commission on Cattle, July 2002, Vol. II, pp.68-69)

A host of other documents have been filed originating from different sources such as Governmental or Semi-governmental, NGOs, individuals or group of individuals, who have carried out researches and concluded that world-over there is an awareness in favour of organic farming for which cattle are indispensable. However, we do not propose to refer to these documents as it would only add to the length of the judgment. We have, apart from the affidavits, mainly referred to the…

—–Coming to economic arguments, what is the economic benefit of keeping bulls or dried up cows? (If the cows are artificially inseminated and the fields are ploughed by machines, it is a burden on the farmer to feed bulls). The cows slaughtered for beef are not the milk-giving ones. India leads the world in beef export and it fetched India Rs.13725.23 crores in 2012. So in purely economic terms, it is an unsound decision to ban cow slaughter——-

when it declared that the complete ban on the slaugher of cows and cow-progeny is intra vires the Constitution of India.

The Satyajeet’s arguements are smashed when we read following words from the Supreme Court Judge:

SUPREME COURT JUDGE

QUOTATION BEGINS: … Importance of Bovine Dung

The Report of the National Commission on Cattle, ibid, … has highlighted the unique and essential role of bovine and bovine dung in our economy and has pleaded that slaughter of our precious animals should be stopped. He has in extenso dealt with several uses of dung and its significance from the point of view of Indian society. Dung is a cheap and harmless fertilizer in absence whereof the farmers are forced to use costly and harmful chemical fertilizers. Dung also has medicinal value in Ayurved, the Indian system of medicines.

Continuing Utility of Cattle : Even if the utility argument of the Quareshi’s judgment is accepted, it cannot be accepted that bulls and bullocks become useless after the age of 16. It has to be said that bulls and bullocks are not useless to the society because till the end of their lives they yield excreta in the form of urine and dung which are both extremely useful for production of bio-gas and manure. Even after their death, they supply hide and other accessories. Therefore, to call them ‘useless’ is totally devoid of reality. If the expenditure on their maintenance is compared to the return which they give, at the most, it can be said that they become ‘less useful’.(Report of the National Commission on Cattle, July 2002, Volume I, p. 279.)

The Report of the National Commission on Cattle has analyzed the economic viability of cows after they stopped yielding milk and it also came to the conclusion that it shall not be correct to call such cows ‘useless cattle’ as they still continue to have a great deal of utility. Similar is the case with other cattle as well.

“37. Economic aspects:

37.1 The cows are slaughtered in India because the owner of the cow finds it difficult to maintain her after she stops yielding milk. This is because it is generally believed that milk is the only commodity obtained from cows, which is useful and can be sold in exchange of cash. This notion is totally wrong. Cow yields products other than milk, which are valuable and…

we all know all cows will give us milk for only for some period in their life.after that they will just become a burden to farmers.if they are not killed for food cow farmers are forced to abandon them.these cows will wander here and there.at last they will have a miserable death.just like death by starvation,disease,accidents etc.who will protect these old cows and how???farmers can’t give these old cows food and protection if they do that they will not get any profit

So the real issue is how to offer protection and care for old cows in an economically viable manner. This is extremely feasible because even a barren cow offers lots of benefits to environment, health and economy. We need to make right infrastructure and mechanism for this to happen. This is step in right direction. Even apart from that, if state-driven protection for cows is offered, that would still be less expensive compared to value that cow offers to us during its productive period. So slaughter ban is first crucial step in right direction with right intent. It must be followed by other crucial steps of protection and rightful utilization of cow at all life-stages.

Than stop eating plants as well. You are disturbing nature’s balance. Plants give oxygen and they are living being so you are a murderer killing the creations of GOD 😛 Also ban on milk as well you are molesting HOLY COW’S. You say me what will happen if someone squeeze your breast daily. Will you enjoy it lol

–Plants give oxygen and they are living being so you are a murderer killing the creations of GOD 😛 — So stop eating plants if you are so sensitive about it.

–Also ban on milk as well you are molesting HOLY COW’S.– You grow up molesting your mother since you were born.

— You say me what will happen if someone squeeze your breast daily. Will you enjoy it lol– Ask your mother how she felt when you did the same immediately after you were born and for several months every few hours.

–Use a bit of thing which we call brain if you have it………..– Use a bit of thing which we call “respect for mother” if you have it. It looks like you are Mohammad Afroz – the Delhi gang rape chief culprit who has been given internet access in juvenile home. Come out and we will make life hell for you.

Khorda Avesta 8.16.58 Ahura Mazda answered: ‘Let the Aryan nations bring libations unto him; let the Aryan nations tie bundles of baresma for him; let the##### Aryan nations cook for him a head of cattle######, either white, or black, or of any other colour, but all of one and the same colour

Rig Veda 10.86.14 [Indra speaks :] The worshippers dress for me fifteen (and) twenty bulls : I eat them and (become) fat, they fill both sides of my belly ;Indra is above all (the world). Atharva Veda 6.71.1 What food I eat of varied form and nature, food whether horse, sheep, goat, or bullock…

Rig Veda 1.162.2-3 What time they bear before the Courser, covered with trappings and with wealth, the grasped oblation, the dappled goat goeth straightforward, bleating, to the place dear to Indra and to Pūṣan. Dear to all Gods, this goat, the share of Pūṣan, is first led forward with the vigorous Courser, while Tvaṣṭar sends him forward with the Charger, acceptable for sacrifice, to glory. Rig Veda 5.29.8 When thou [Indra] three hundred buffaloes’ flesh hadst eaten, and drunk, as Maghavan, three lakes of Soma, All the Gods raised as ’twere a shout of triumph to Indra praise because he slew the Dragon. Rig Veda 1.161.10 One pours the red water, (the blood), upon the ground ; one cuts the flesh, divided into fragments by the chopper; and a third separates the excrement from the other parts f in what manner may the parents (of the sacrifice) render assistance to their sons? Rig Veda 10.94.3 Loudly they speak, for they have found the savoury meath: they make a humming sound over the meat prepared. As they devour the branch of the Red-coloured Tree, these, the well-pastured Bulls, have uttered bellowings. Rig Veda 10.86.13 Indra will eat thy bulls… Now the verses I mentioned clearly speaks about meat consumption, Have a look at what other scriptures says on slaughtering cows

Satapatha Brahman 6:2:2:11. The Karakas slaughter (a he-goat) for Pragâpati, saying, ‘Pragâpati, having built up the fire-altar (agni), became Agni. When he slaughters that [goat] one, then indeed he reaches the end of Agni (the fire-altar).’

Shukla Yajur Veda 2.5.5 On the full moon (the Soma) is pressed for the gods; during this half-month it is pressed forth for them, and a cow for Mitra and Varuna is to be slaughtered for them at the new moon. In that he sacrifices on the day before…In that he sacrifices at the new moon with clotted curds for Mitra and Varuna, the cow which is slaughtered for the gods becomes his also.

MY ADVICE TO AGNIVEER & MAHARASHTRA GOVT FIRST U TRY TO REMOVE THE VERSES (THAT SUPPORT MEAT CONSUMPTION)FROM THE VEDA & I THINK BANNING BEAF MEAT NOT LOVE FOR HINDUISM,IT JUST SHOW THE RACIST BEHAVIOR & HATE AGAINST MUSLIM.

1. Quoting Zoroastrian text Khodra Avesta to prove that Hindu books sanction beef is like getting slapped on face and rubbing burnol on a$$. I can also prove from Jew/Shia/Ahmadi books that your sect is a sect of pigs? So whats the point?

2. Rest other allegations regarding Vedas have been punctured by Agniveer way back. Irony is that it is the same post in which Agniveer has given links to those rebuttals on which you are claiming beef! You are like that unaware fool mosquito who is in search of a space to hide and finds the top of a plugged in All Out to sit on.

3. Beef has such adverse effect on minds, specially Muslim minds that most of them spell it as ‘BEAF’ (look at your comment). So if you reject beef, it can help you improve your IQ, English Grammar, analytical skills, exam-cracking abilities, competing abilities with normal human beings, hygiene habits and what not.

You are welcomed at ali Sina.org to pass your comments. This is Hindu website. Dr. Sina has highest regard for muhammad. He recently posted a great article about Muhammad spiritual knowledge. Please visit the page and get enlightened and spread the truth.

Vajra and Shatrupa = the blog owner posting under different names.. a megalomaniac who called himself fire warrior, likes to keep his profile clean so uses aliases to abuse, ( yeah right the owner specially increased the character count for you.. )

So the aliases obviously have to be names like Vajra and Shatrupa… I guess soon Bramha, Vishnu and Shiva too will chime in

No point debating with people whose argument for all logical debate is ‘cow is my mother’ and who when all else fails resort to insults to make up for their poor debating skills

Kerala still serves beef, good luck trying to shut that down. Filet Mignon in God’s own country lol

——-Vajra and Shatrupa = the blog owner posting under different names——-

And you seem to be the juvenile rapist Mohammed Afroz aka Raju of Delhi gang rape case given your constant and brutal defence for rapes and killings. I have heard that that pig Mohammed Afroze has got all facilities including internet and games in his shelter home. I am sure you and him are same man. And probably this Shabeer (hit and run Jihadi on same post pasting copied stuffs like rabid dog) is none but you!

——yeah right the owner specially increased the character count for you.. ——

It was done even for you. But you will never acknowledge that. Because that same rapist mindset of not listening to the other with which you mutilated an innocent has not left you yet.

——So the aliases obviously have to be names like Vajra and Shatrupa… I guess soon Bramha, Vishnu and Shiva too will chime in——-

There you go. It never takes more than 2 minutes for you to start mocking Hinduism. What has my name got to do with Hindu Gods? Why insult them?

—–No point debating with people whose argument for all logical debate is ‘cow is my mother’——

There can be no logical debate with killers of my mother. Will you debate rapists of …….?

———Kerala still serves beef, good luck trying to shut that down. Filet Mignon in God’s own country lol——-

This is exactly how that pig rapist Mohammed Afroze would have reacted- “If you stop me from inserting rod inside an innocent and raping her, someone else will do it in other state. Rapes in God’s own country lol”

But know that the days of rapists and killers are over. You cant go on raping women in buses and killing babies or cows for your taste. Be ready to rot in jail and get thrashed publicly.

I request everyone to refrain from casting adverse remarks on mother – be it human or cow. This is a forum for discussions among like-minded people and not debates. Agniveer holds women with highest respect. It also holds cow with highest respect. In fact, human mother, cow, country, earth – are all mothers. And no insult will be tolerated against them. A society that respects mother is heaven. Else it is hell. Let us respect mother. Those who differ or have harsh words for mother are free to leave the site.

Coming to economic arguments, what is the economic benefit of keeping bulls or dried up cows? (If the cows are artificially inseminated and the fields are ploughed by machines, it is a burden on the farmer to feed bulls). The cows slaughtered for beef are not the milk-giving ones. India leads the world in beef export and it fetched India Rs.13725.23 crores in 2012. So in purely economic terms, it is an unsound decision to ban cow slaughter.

There are better ways to utilize same resources. Why should I not kill you and your mother and father and everyone and export their meat in Africa and East Asia where it can fetch great money? Let court allow cannibalism by consent (or even without it), by this logic. You should ask these questions to government and demand for constitutional amendments to remove Directive Principles for Constitution. Agniveer would instead follow the letter and spirit of constitution. Haryana is next state to make stricter laws against cattle slaughter.

“Why should I not kill you and your mother and father and everyone and export their meat in Africa and East Asia where it can fetch great money?” What a ludicrous statement. Either argue from a “hindusim” angle or a logical one. Your last statement certainly isnt logical as without a buyer there cant be any trade and unlike your interpretation of hinduism that cows are sacred which im sure a lot of people agree with, there wont be a single person in civil society who would agree with your cannibalism argument

——–India leads the world in beef export and it fetched India Rs.13725.23 crores in 2012. So in purely economic terms, it is an unsound decision to ban cow slaughter.——–

If your mother/sister/wife starts doing prostitution, she can fetch 10 times amount than what she is currently doing. Point is that when I consider a species as holy as my mother, bloody pig, how can you even talk about killing them so easily and relate it to economic benefits?

——–What a ludicrous statement. Either argue from a “hindusim” angle or a logical one. ——–

There is now the third angle also. Which is prostitution option for your mother/sister/wife. Lets discuss everything afresh from this third angle. Right, moron?

——Your last statement certainly isnt logical as without a buyer there cant be any trade———

Ask your mother to start new business I talked earlier. There will be many buyers of your mother, so will be more trade, more people will come to her and more money will come to you. Logical, no?

——–and unlike your interpretation of hinduism that cows are sacred which im sure a lot of people agree with——–

Same goes w/ your interpretation about your mother. Some people including you might consider her a respectable woman but most men would like to be w/ her during her business hours, And there wont be a single man who would reject her.

Feeling bad, very bad? I am too feeling same. When you know that I respect someone as mother and then you go on talking/discussing its killing and trade analysing it from economic angle, I cant control my emotions. You take back your entire words, arguments and discussion, I will take mine.

@Vajra, You seriously need to learn how to debate based on logic without getting personal. Calling me a moron or trying to provoke me by calling my mother/sister/wife/daughter a whore under the veil of some sort of logical argument shows what a shallow person you are. By equating cannibalism to prostitution, you show what little intellect you possess.

If you feel a cow deserves the treatment your mother deserves thats you prerogative, but please read the rest of my arguments, including my comments in another blog post where the author has conveniently posted the last comment as a rejoinder and then conveniently shut comments.

I have posted several arguments from both the angle of secularism, economic viability and that too without being personal.

I’m not an expert on the vedas or scriptures so ive not commented on those “interpretations” by many people where some say Indra and agni used to consume cow flesh and then others who say that it is wrong interpretation of Sanskrit words which have subjective meaning.

So if you can make your point logically and intellectually, please do so. I’m not here to waste my time engaging in a name calling and pissing competition with you.

And my final comment and wonderment is how the character limitation of 500 characters was lifted for you.. your post has 1624 characters.

Satyajit, Do not inflate your ego much and accuse the author. This is Agniveer site and not your home turf. It is place where likeminded people come and discuss as per Comment Policy (whose link appears before you post any comment). Comments were shut on No Beef in Vedas article because number of comments became so large that page size exceeded 1MB for a single post! Since ban, thousands are reading the article daily and we have greater obligation towards them than argue with you. Character limit extension has happened for everyone and not just for Vajra. Your this very post where you are putting baseless allegations of character limitation is of 1365 characters. Please read our Comment Policy and Disclaimers carefully. And respect our right to freely promote our views on our site as per our own choice. Admin

———- You seriously need to learn how to debate based on logic without getting personal.——–

I dont debate the killers of my mother. If you threaten to kill my mother or side w/ killers or argue on why my mother should be killed, I will return the favor with interest. Its all personal to me, understood?

——–Calling me a moron or trying to provoke me by calling my mother/sister/wife/daughter a whore under the veil of some sort of logical argument shows what a shallow person you are.———

And you can keep discussing about economic benefits of killing and trading my mother’s flesh? Who gave you this right, pig? Are you a human or dog who, despite knowing the feelings and sensitivities of people involved wrt cattle on this page, keeps barking?

——- By equating cannibalism to prostitution, you show what little intellect you possess.——-

I didn’t equate them.

——–If you feel a cow deserves the treatment your mother deserves thats you prerogative, but please read the rest of my arguments,———

I can say same things about your mother. Keep your arguments in your a$$. There can be no debate on mother’s respect and life.

——–my comments in another blog post where the author has conveniently posted the last comment as a rejoinder and then conveniently shut comments.——–

So nice to hear that. This is exactly what should be done with people like you devoid of any sentiments. You go to a page knowing its author considers cow as mother and then start discussing why beef is beneficial. What do you accept in return, moron?

———-I have posted several arguments from both the angle of secularism, economic viability and that too without being personal.———-

Its all personal when you are talking about killing my mother. I also talked about arguments from economic angle of prostitution by your dear ones w/o getting personal. Why are you so offended? Got the point?

——-I’m not an expert on the vedas or scriptures——–

Who cares?

———–I’m not here to waste my time engaging in a name calling and pissing competition with you.———–

Look at you. Talking about killing my mother and blaming me for name calling?

——-And my final comment and wonderment is how the character limitation of 500 characters was lifted for you.. your post has 1624 characters.——–

It was lifted even for you thats why you can see your comments. But someone like you filled with hatred can’t see that. He only finds ways of killing and raping innocents. I requested admin to lift the character limitation so that I can defend my mother against filthy heartless creatures like you. And I thank admin that he/she did it.

——Any affiliation to the author?——-

Yes, he is the source of inspiration for millions including me. He taught millions how to fight fanatics and bigots like you who encroach on someone else’s space, spew hatred, incite violence and get innocents raped and killed. Proud to be his fan.

I don’t understand how one can find Vajra’s comment as “personal” when he finds nothing personal in citing economic benefits of killing cows in a site which clearly says that it considers cow as mother. Why are people like Satyajit trolling here? Does Secularism mean that they can enter into anybody’s home and start insulting his sentiments. If you don’t like Agniveer’s articles, go and write against it in your own website. But if you insult feeling of fans of Agniveer, they are bound to reply in same language.

If there is nothing wrong in suggesting killing of mother for economic benefit, how is suggesting prostitution wrong? It is a true fact that prostitution is most successful business of world and never has recession. The economic value of flesh-trading will be hundred times more than flesh-eating. So purely from economic standpoint, if beef-eaters instead start prostitution business with their family members as prostitutes and gigolos, that would be extremely beneficial for nation. It will increase tourism, get foreign exchange and remove poverty. What is so wrong in prostitution? Is it not secular?

There is nothing personal in suggesting prostitution as a lucrative economic option, if killing is also considered the same. Many respectable people today are prostitutes. They are proud of their prostitution. Like Sunny Leone. So are you not insulting sentiments of respectable prostitutes by calling them whores? The punishment for prostitution is less than punishment for murder. In fact it is not criminal at all in most situations. I believe you were being personal here instead of brother Vajra. Just my two cents. In no mood to argue. Am happy that even Digvijay Singh appreciated beef ban. Also even in Kashmir – muslim majority state and not completely integrated with India, cow slaughter has severe punishment. And no one ever called it anti-secular.

A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, By the very definition of secularism, the state cannot ban cow slaughter citing the reason to be: “Banned in Hinduism”. The state has no right to ban cow slaughter simply because it is banned in Hinduism just like it has no right to ban idol worship simply because it’s banned in Christianity/Islam.

more than 50 % of turtles are already extinct and many more species. 270 species of COWs are vanished 5 species of buffalo are extinct population of cows + buffalo + goat + sheep was more than 150 crore before british government left india. in 2011 cows + buffalo + goat + sheep are only >15-16crore. . After 20 more years meat eaters will only have SHIT to EAT

Rudr, I appreciate your arguments my friend, at least you don’t resort to name calling like some.

All your arguments suggest that humans are destroying the planet… and i agree with that in most parts

But how many species have been rendered extinct due to dietary choices, due to greed… like trading in endangered species parts or tearing down forests to make way for urban development etc is debatable

I dont have any reputed source that verifies your statistics so if you could cite them then it would be most helpful

Thanks for your point of view 🙂 but i know 20 years from now i wont be eating shit. or in the interim period either

satyajit “But how many species have been rendered extinct due to dietary choices” — No species have been vanished due to dietary choices. But with deforestation. Deforestation because of OVER POPULATION and industrialization. source youtbue: i7xaTCfA7js

i am arya so far so now i ate chicken 3 times and eggs more than 10-15 times i did it for protein gain and body building i stopped eating all NON VEG food becoz later on i come to know that protein in moving animals are not in digestible form and myself have experienced the difference. TO PRODUCE 1 kilogram of WHEAT you need 700 liters of water on your FARM. TO PRODUCE 1 KILOGRAM OF RICE you need 2100 liters of WATER on your FARMLAND BUT IF YOU WANT to Produce 1 KG of MEAT(BEEF, PORK etc) you need 70000 liters- 1 50000 liters of water.(AVERAGE) SO NON-VEG consumers consumes more WATER. . There are lakhs of farmers who got benefited ————–IF YOU ARE MUSLIM AND YOU EAT COW’S MEAT plz beware of hybrid meats—– jersey , H & F cows ( HUMPLESS COW) are hybrids of PIG + antelope + African bos Taurus PIG (which is haram in every religious text except Christians) netherland did this to getting more MILK production. But the milk of these cows are A1. And natural god made cow and buffalo has A2 milk. REMEMBER THAT more than 50% cows in slaughter house are HYBRIDS. If you dont believe go yourself and see it take a picture from google of Hybrid cows and indian humped cows. if u r not muslim and love meat still it is very unhealthy.

PLZ ALSO Research EINSTEIN PAIN WAVE THEORY. EPW works because heart is magnetically 5000x stronger and electrically 100x stronger than brain. . . also the veg diets which lack nutrients are the 1 which ar Hybrids most of made by MONSANT0

Hinduism prohibits slaughter of cattle because of other rational reasons cited in article. Constitution has accordingly put it in Directive Principles. Agniveer fully supports fulfillment of constitutional directives.

Hindusim may prohibit cow slaughter, but if you claim India is secular then forcing your viewpoint on non hindus is certainly not being secular. Why dont you then either decide if you are secular or not?

——A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion,——–

1. And democracy is a system of government in which power is vested in the PEOPLE. And people elected a party that promised to protect cattle in its manifesto.

2. Are you suggesting that BJP had no power to include cattle protection in its manifesto or it was a crime? Or the crores of people that voted for cattle protection are criminals? Or their belief that cattle shouldn’t be killed is a crime? Who are you to judge that? You are too small to judge right or wrongs about my belief, understood, moron?

3. BTW, go to Zakir Naiks and other Islamic fanatics and release your fart about secular state in front of them. They still can marry 4 women at a time and divorce their wives w/o latter’s consent. Same thing can’t be done by Hindus. They will be jailed for this. Now dont give me the shit of ‘if that is happening , its wrong’. Because if you dont know this, you are a fool living in fool’s paradise who is unaware of real issues. So improve your GK first and then come for serious discussions. If you know that and still chose the issue of beef-ban over them, that proves that you are a hypocrite and coward who pisses in pants in front of fanatics but becomes warrior of truth in front of harmless people.

——-By the very definition of secularism, the state cannot ban cow slaughter citing the reason to be: “Banned in Hinduism”. ———

Improve your GK. It was banned because people voted for it. Had it been allowed to continue, it would have been moral crime (of not fulfilling the promise made in manifesto) by the ruling party.

———The state has no right to ban cow slaughter——–

Its done in Maharashtra already. It will be done across all of India by efforts of people like Agniveer.

——-Hindusim may prohibit cow slaughter, but if you claim India is secular then forcing your viewpoint on non hindus is certainly not being secular. ———

Nobody forced voters to vote for a particular party. India voted for cattle protection. Now its law. And law is enforced. This is called rule of law. And those who refuse to obey it are called criminals. You can also choose to hate ‘Hindu viewpoint’ that rapists are criminals. You can also want to legalize rapes because anti-rape law is enforcement of ‘Hindu viewpoint’ on rapists. But rape is still a crime. You cant rape women in this country and you cant kill cattle because majority of people dont want rapes or beef. Now cry about secularism, nobody cares.

——–Why dont you then either decide if you are secular or not?——-

We are a secular democratic nation. Anybody who now kills cow will be jailed for 5 years. No exemption for Hindus. This law applies equally to all. This is true secularism. If you have guts, fight for real issues.

I would ignore most of this particular post as all you seem is to vent.. and that too without fact

I neither hate hindu viewpoints nor do i associate myself with Zakir Naik so please don’t make assumptions

All i would like to say to this comment by you

“We are a secular democratic nation. Anybody who now kills cow will be jailed for 5 years. No exemption for Hindus. This law applies equally to all. ”

So outraging a womens modesty which is a sugar coated way of saying just stopping short of rape is punishable by 2 years of imprisonment under section 354 and under this new law.. not just killing but possessing, transporting or eating cow meat is punishable for 5 years

Ergo eating cow meat is a lesser offense than stopping short of raping a woman??

——–I would ignore most of this particular post as all you seem is to vent.. and that too without fact——–

Vent w/o fact? You couldn’t refute even a single point of this post or my comment.

——–nor do i associate myself with Zakir Naik———

Thats not enough. If beef-ban pinches you, the inhumane polygamy and divorce laws that treat 150 Million Muslim women of this country like dirt should pinch you a thousand times more. Staying neutral on this proves that you are coward of highest order.

——- so please don’t make assumptions——–

Words w/o substance, make no sense.

——–So outraging a womens modesty which is a sugar coated way of saying just stopping short of rape is punishable by 2 years of imprisonment under section 354 and under this new law.. not just killing but possessing, transporting or eating cow meat is punishable for 5 years——-

Why complain about this here? Why not do some concrete things towards having more severe punishments for molesters? Agniveer is already running the movement for death penalty for rapists and stronger punishment for molesters. But if someone believes that we should not have punishment for killing because we have less severe punishment for rapes, he is a psychopath.

——-I fail to see the logic——–

You fail to even apply it. Learn manners, logic will eventually enter your brain.

I don’t know why Satyajit is hyping so much “secular”. India became secular in 1976. And it has Directive Principles since formation of constitution which asks government to make laws prohibiting killing of cows and cattle. So why you have no respect for Constitution? Why no one ever objected to Directive Principles till today and suddenly crying hoarse? Want is anti-secular in implementing a Directive Principle? And if you think so, then start campaigning against constitution. You can’t criticize someone for following the constitution.

i have the best solution for that, Start BIOGAS PLANT Generate FREE ELECTRICITY, FREE FUEL , FREE METHANE. And SELL THE SLURY I personally know a person who earns in CRORES anually from his BIOGAS PLANT.

JUST IMAGINE THE money you will save from GAS BILL, ELECTRICITY BILL, + you get slurry the best fertilizer that you can sell and 100s of farmers are ready to buy.

Why do you need to attack on any person if you do not have enough information “I don’t know how you managed to mess up this basic concept being an IIT-IIM graduate..” It is irrelevant and immature statement. Moreover, FYI.. These foods are banned in these countries: 1. Pink Slime – meat pulled from the bone – banned in European union 2. Hormone infused american beef – European Union, Japan, Australia, and China

First of all,India is a Republic,and not a “democracy” as you have so conveniently stated in your arguments.In a pure democracy,the majority has the absolute power and the ultimate say.But unfortunately for you in a republic,the majority is not allowed to overrule the minority.So such a ban can definitely not be imposed in a republic.It could have been possible in a pure democracy/theocracy but for that you need to find some other country which encourages that.I don’t know how you managed to mess up this basic concept being an IIT-IIM graduate…

1. Republic is a form of democracy. India is a republic democracy – that is why people elect representatives who then run the country as per people’s aspirations. 2. Where does the question of majority and minority come here? A practice that is dangerous for environment, economy and culture was eradicated after following the due democratic process. What is wrong there. 3. And who says ban cannot be imposed in democracy? There are already hundreds of bans in all democracies. Poaching of tigers is banned, cannibalism is banned, breeding mosquitoes is banned, growing narcotics is banned.

To add, please review the Directive Principles as per Indian Constitution. Part 4, 48 clearly states that ” prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle” is a directive principle. So is Uniform Civil Code (44). Do you now mean to say that Constitution has problems. If yes, why none of these beef-lovers ever raised voice against constitution in last 68 years? Is it not a pity that people are calling anti-republic/ anti-democratic an act that is clearly documented in Constitution as a goal for the state to achieve and has now been achieved through due democratic process strictly as per same constitution and law of land?

Eye opening article, great perspective – thank you so much for sharing.

A friend recently argued “Most states in India have financially weak Hindu castes, Muslims and Christians depending upon beef for cheap nutrition. It is elitist it is to say that instead of being able to opt for inexpensive nutrition, they should opt for veg food (which is statistically more expensive for a the same amount of nutrients)?”

I tried searching for Yearly Beef consumption figures bifurcated by strata, and state – couldn’t find much information. Thoughts?

What the writer is advocating is a Hindu Theocracy in India. this is nothing unusual, they do have Theocracies in many Islamic countries. Even in USA, the religious right or the Tea Party wants to establish Fundamentalist Christian Theocracy. Fundamentalism of any kind, whether Muslim, Christian or Hindu, is equally dangerous. Whether the author will be able to implement his draconian, extremist agenda depends upon Indian population.

“Collective wisdom of majority that is witnessed through election process”

I am a Canadian. But if this is true of India, then it shows the limitations of Indian democracy. India is not a true democracy like the West, but a limited, a flawed democracy like Russia. In a true democracy, fundamental rights are protected by the constitution, and cannot be repealed by the whims of the majority.

The right to eat what one wants would come under the right of freedom of association, freedom of speech. As such in USA or Canada, majority cannot ban eating anything, it would be unconstitutional.

What is theocratic in banning the most polluting activity that increases poverty? There is impetus to eradicate beef production from intellectual agencies across the globe. The ban is not on eating beef. Ban is on killing of cow and cattle. In USA, there is ban on killing bald eagles. There are bans on hundreds of other things – pollutants, poaching, narcotics, cannibalism, public indecency, arms and ammunition, traffic rules and what not? How does is make a state theocratic? By this logic all efforts to protect environment, follow rules, remove poverty are also theocratic! Penalty for not paying taxes is also theocratic! Only fools will consider this as Hindu or religious decision. This is a welcome decision for all who are concerned about environment, poverty-alleviation and of course animals rights.

Please read the Indian Constitution. Ban on Cow Slaughter is a goal of Indian Constitution as documented in Directive Principles. And it has been implemented through a completely democratic process. Refer Part 1V.48: “—The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.” 48A states that State must strive to protect the environment.

So Maharashtra Government followed the Indian Constitution’s vision. If someone has objection to it, please democratically engage in changing the constitution. I am surprised why no one ever opposed Directive Principles in last 68 years. Don’t vent anger on the author. Please criticize the constitution. Author is merely elaborating on spirit of constitution.

Disclaimer: This is not to counter argue and debate, but just a personal opinion.

This is selective pick-up of constitutional directives intended to “just prove a point”.

You should seriously go ahead and understand the constitution of India, as against merely reading & subsequently “biased interpretation”.

It is sad that our youth is moving backwards in wisdom and treading towards fanaticism.

Why just cattle? Why not ban all (unnatural) killing?

If you talk about liberalism, we should protect all life (animals, birds, marine life & of course us humans!). “No killing of any species”, would be an unbiased agenda.

A modern progressive civilization cannot be built on the grounds of religious belief system of a particular community. Look at ISIS, Taliban, etc., for what happens when civilization is dictated by religious belief system.

For a country as diverse as India, this sort of religious reasoning is as fanatic as it can be.

I am neither against the ban nor with it. But I do know that we write a lot, but act little or not at all. It’s a pity that humans by far are self-declared and self-obsessed species of this planet. For us, it is all about “my religion, my belief” and so on and so forth. We forgot that we share out planet with other species, we do not own it!

Well, we destroy marine life by injecting all industrial waste into it – Yamuna as prime example. We destroy a complete ecosystem by religious belief driven actions – Ganga as prime example.

What about that life and it’s impact on ecosystem as a whole? We don’t care about that now, do we?

All said and done, it would have been fantastic if the views presented herein were naturalist & progressive and if the constitutional directives were not interpreted in a biased manner.

However, as said in the first line, these are just personal views. No offense intended and no argument intended.

IndianRealist says :For a country as diverse as India, this sort of religious reasoning is as fanatic as it can be.

Answer: Cow-protection is not a religious thing.

Please read the constitution of India (Part IV–Directive Principles of State Policy) and its interpretation given by the SUPREME COURT OF INDIA as provided by me while answering the comment of “Riyaz” above.

Why are bringing “Religion” into picture yourself?

Cow and bull protection is a POSITIVE thought. Not only is it religious but it is also required for environment. Why should you have any objection for that?

The diversity bullsit excuse is always used when against Hindus, but when it comes to other religions we just say ban. I’m tired of the double standard crap. We ban satanic verses but not PK. We ban divincie code, but not degrading art against Hindus. Even though i am against idol worship i can see the double standard.

We tax Hindu temples, but government gives money to so called minority religious groups and never tax their place of worship. We let one group marry four wives while everone else marry’s one spouce.

What a load of crap your diversity is. I’m sorry but i no longer believe in your diversity. First equality then we will talk about diversity dumbass.

Riyaz said: Don’t mislead the people…. They know the meaning of milch and draught animals.

Answer

(to Riyaz)

Please don’t post irrelevant comments without any tail or head. We know very well the meaning of milch and drought cattle as interpreted by the SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

Article 48 {Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry}

The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.

Article 48-A {Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life}

The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.

Article 48 consists of two parts. The first part enjoins the State to “endeavour to organize agricultural and animal husbandry” and that too “on modern and scientific lines”. The emphasis is not only on ‘organization’ but also on ‘modern and scientific lines’. The subject is ‘agricultural and animal husbandry’. India is an agriculture based economy. According to 2001 census, 72.2% of the population still lives in villages (See- India Vision 2020, p.99) and survives for its livelihood on agriculture, animal husbandry and related occupations. The second part of Article 48 enjoins the State, de hors the generality of the mandate contained in its first part, to take steps, in particular, “for preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle”.

Article 48-A deals with “environment, forests and wild life”. These three subjects have been dealt with in one Article for the simple reason that the three are inter-related. Protection and improvement of environment is necessary for safeguarding forests and wild life, which in turn protects and improves the environment. Forests and wild life are clearly inter-related and inter-dependent. They protect each other. Cow progeny excreta is scientifically recognized as a source of rich organic manure. It enables the farmers avoiding the use of chemicals and inorganic manure. This helps in improving the quality of earth and the environment. The impugned enactment enables the State in its endeavour to protect and improve the environment within the meaning of Article 48A of the Constitution.

By enacting clause (g) in Article 51-A and giving it the status of a fundamental duty, one of the objects sought to be achieved by the Parliament is to ensure that the spirit and message of Articles 48 and 48A is honoured as a fundamental duty of every citizen. The Parliament availed the opportunity provided by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 to improve the manifestation of objects contained in Article 48 and 48-A. While Article 48-A speaks of “environment”, Article 51-A(g) employs the expression “the natural environment” and includes therein “forests, lakes, rivers and wild life”. While Article 48 provides for “cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle”, Article 51-A(g) enjoins it as a fundamental duty of every citizen “to have compassion for living creatures”, which in its wider fold embraces the category of cattle spoken of specifically in Article 48.

DICTIONARY MEANINGS

I husbandry (noun)

1. the cultivation or production of plants or animals; agriculture 2. scientific control and management of a branch of farming and especially of domestic animals. 3. the control or judicious use of resources

II milch (adjective)

Giving milk:

Example: a milch cow

III draught (adjective)

1. denoting an animal used for pulling heavy loads. 2. British variant of draft

IV draft (noun)

1. The act of pulling loads; traction. 2. Something that is pulled or drawn; a load. 3. A team of animals used to pull loads. 4. (various other meanings)

V cattle (plural noun)

1. Any of various chiefly domesticated mammals of the genus Bos, including cows, steers, bulls, and oxen. 2. bovine animals, esp. domesticated members of the genus Bos, as cows and steers.

VI bovine (adjective)

1. Of, relating to, or resembling a ruminant mammal of the genus Bos, such as an ox, cow, or buffalo.

Dear rameshji, Pls read this article again…no one is stopping u from eating what you want..we are just against killing cow..if tomorrow someone wants to kill a human for eating..can that be allowed??will u allow that freedom?

I have one small problem with this article. All hindus consider cow as their mother then how come they do not take care of these cows. Most of the cows, and bulls are homeless and do not have any food to eat. It is good to read these articles but till there are no actions, these are just thought waves those will be diminished after few days and everyone will forget this topic. Actions are better than simple talks.

Do you know if you ban meat products, then prices of your vegetable and grains will rise sky high. There is a food chain that has followed to prevent excess of things . you may know excess of everything is bad

I agree with most of the points. But, I don’t agree with the sentiments part. Muslims are critisized for being over sensitive and overreacting to everything. We, Hindus must not be like that. Moreover, cow-slaughter happens in almost every other country. There, it doesn’t hurt the sentiments of the people. So, is it acceptable to you ? In my opinion, most of the laws must be same across the world. But, if you use ‘hurting sentiments’ as an argument, it won’t work for the whole world, because then, we are a minority. The other arguments (like environmental concerns, etc,.) are more…

(contd.) more logical and acceptable in the bigger picture of the whole world and are more likely to convince people of other faiths as well. I appreciate the ban on cow-slaughter in Maharashtra very much. I see this as the first step towards ban on cow slaughter in the whole country and then, ultimately, in the whole world.

1)Once Muslims attain majority in India (which they will eventually…..unless of course human beings become extinct by that time once the natural resources are consumed…..and I am talking about only a 2 or 3 hundered years here)………..can they impose ban on Hindu’s ways of life and religion……say ban on temples, idols, Hindu festivals, films based on Hinduism and maybe in fact just practising Hinduism!!

2)Should there be a ban on beef in general (cow I can understand….but beef in general?????)

None of the things you mentioned are a threat to the environment. Nevertheless, I think , if Muslims become the majority, such type of laws will come into existence. But, I don’t think they will become the majority. People are moving away from religion in general, these days. If somewhat rational and liberal religion like Hinduism can’t attract them, I don’t see religions like Islam attracting them.

Agniveer ji, i would like a still more solid rebuttal for the argument that ‘India is a secular country with diversified population, and one community should not/cannot dictate the preferences and habits of others; its a democratic set-up and no one should dictate his terms on others, freedom of this-and-that and blah blah’, if you may, please.

What is the reason that in spite of our invaluable texts like Darshan, Nyaya Sutra, Vaisheshik Darshan, Sankhya Darshan, Vedanta, Upanishads, Ramayan, Gita do remain untouched by majority of hindu people. It is real shame that majority of hindu people are completely ignorant of their culture and have no clue about anything related to hinduism. Please try to explore the reasons behind these and you will find how and why most of hindus are just hindus for the name sake (just because they were born to hindu parents), they have not read or done anything to learn and understand about hinduism.

(contd.) these people get influenced by the west’s increasing disillusionment from the Church and religion (not much to convince therein already), and since they know almost nothing about our own wealth of knowledge contained in our scriptures (ie, apart from what propagandists like naik are spreading), they easily take to atheism and scientific fanaticism. only the shocks-and-jolts and direct experiences (like meeting a true Yogi) of life may hold chance for SOME of them. IDK whom to blame for this, our system, the western influence through various media, or….don’t know. pray for good!

Most of hindus are the hindus for name sake because they are not action oriented. They do not read any scriptures and even if they read, they just only believe in giving lectures or writing articles. They do not believe in any community work. They go to temple and just do some puja and think that they are clean and pure now. They do not live in real world where they have to do some real contributions to the society. You take care of your home and make sure that everyone in your family is fed and properly taken care of.

Then spread this same love and compassion towards your community and make sure everyone living in your community including birds and animals are also properly taken care of. This is how american people contributes to their community. But Indian people are very quick to follow bad part of westernized culture and feel proud of it. If you want to mimic western culture, then mimc cleanliness, professionalism, respect, social skills, communication, humbleness and selfless. Hindus have big treasures of vedic culture and talk about it all the time but how are they using this knowledge into action

Did someone notice who are those majority of people who are against ban on cow-slaughter? Most of the time, when I read the articles, I found a section of hindus are against ban on cow-slaughter. These hindus are against anything that depicts hinduism. Please try to find the underneath reason why hindus are not united and ignorant of their own culture. Why these people call themselves hindus. Let us do some introspection of our religion.

rest assured, that people like us may be increasingly becoming a minority among the so-called ‘educated’. i frequent tech-forums, and most, if not all the comments and sentiments (being) reflected there are against such a ban. infact, utter anything with the word ‘ban’, and people start getting worked up! yes, most of such people comprise of ‘Hindus’, and they are verily ignorant of their own traditions, prostrate in front of the white man and take his word as the gospel, are scientism fanatics, and anything ‘Hindu’ for them is vile am sure!

Do u weep for the cows in Europe and the Americas?? Would u like to have an elected representative for the cows??? How about empowerment and education of the cows?? How about atleat decent homes for ur “mothers”? How about banning fish since its one of mahavishu’s avatars??